
Announcement: RT and Sputnik Advertising - runesoerensen
https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Announcement-RT-and-Sputnik-Advertising.html
======
diminish
Afaik - most _international_ US media interferes in many elections, anywhere
in the world with strong opinions. Why is it wrong with the reverse? Germany's
Spiegel, or UK's Guardian can also have opinions about US elections and what's
wrong in it?

~~~
awinder
Spiegel and Guardian aren't part of a state-sponsored program with an explicit
goal of destabilization. It's not difficult to understand & imagine what the
difference is between both creating story lines & hyping / targeting those
stories for maximum damage versus straight journalism.

The US interferes with elections and those states combat those attempts. Other
states interfere with US elections, and we must combat those attempts as well.
Welcome to the game, not playing is not an option.

~~~
infodroid
The problem in the case of the Twitter announcement is that it appears
dishonest. RT/Sputnik were not the source of the fake news stories that marred
the US election, and yet are taking the blame for it. While the real producers
of fake news aren't mentioned and get a free pass:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-
became...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-
global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo)

[https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-
news/](https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38168281](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38168281)

~~~
nickbauman
RT/Sputnik is part of an integrated state propaganda machine which is indeed
the source of the election interference. You cannot separate them.

~~~
grandalf
Yet somehow this "integrated state propaganda machine" manages to write better
journalism about many issues of concern to the least powerful Americans than
the American press.

I don't disagree with your characterization, but I'd also characterize cable
news, the NYT, WaPo, etc. that way. These big "news and entertainment"
companies do not offer any meaningful political dissent whatsoever.

~~~
travmatt
And yet they don’t have journalists resigning and calling them propaganda, or
resigning because they were assigned to leave the US and work in Crimea.
There’s a clear difference when the journalists themselves can’t stomach what
they are doing.

~~~
grandalf
Well, that's if you consider them to be journalists rather than actors and
actresses. At least the ones on television have zero journalistic acumen.

~~~
DonHopkins
Are you going to provide those specific examples of Rachel Maddow's Emmy-
award-winning reporting on the Flynt water crisis being biased and inaccurate,
and those specific examples of RT's coverage of the Flynt water crisis being
unbiased and accurate?

You're the one who demanded specific examples, but then failed to provide any
yourself, after being asked repeatedly.

What is your evidence that Rachel Maddow is an actress and not a journalist?
What is your evidence that Rachel Maddow has zero journalistic acumen?

Specific examples!

By the way, have you looked up the definition of whataboutism yet, to which
you have openly confessed of being guilty? It's not a "buzzword". It's not
"juvenile". And it definitely doesn't mean "Counter-factual scenarios that
reveal your opinion to be illogical and cherry-picked for some emotional
reason" as you falsely claim. It's a logical fallacy particularly associated
with Soviet and Russian propaganda, comrade.

~~~
travmatt
Distract/Deflect/Deny

------
SEJeff
One thing literally no one on this thread thusfar has mentioned is that the
Department of Justice has compelled RT and Sputnik to fill out the
paperwork[1] for FARA[2] registration. The DOJ isn't going to just target
journalists for FARA registration without some sort of (probably classified
under a FISA order) information letting them know that indeed, this org is
working as an agent for a foreign government. Thus far, RT has not complied.

[1] [http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-
lobbying/3...](http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-
lobbying/350226-russian-network-rt-must-register-as-foreign-agent-in)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act)

~~~
MichaelGG
Wonder if they'll ever get around to making AIPAC do so. Until they do it
makes it obviously political posing.

~~~
SEJeff
Very much agreed, but that is super unlikely given the current administration.

------
vowelless
I hope next up is blocking Saudi funded groups from advertising.

Oh wait, [https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-
twi...](https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-
jack-dorsey-does/)

So that won't happen -- and everything now makes sense ...

~~~
truxus
The Saudis are locked in golden handcuffs. We provide them lavish lifestyles,
they provide us irreplaceable energy resources. When the oil is gone those
people go back to living in the dark ages.

~~~
gourou
> When the oil is gone those people go back to living in the dark ages.

Except they invest everywhere, SoftBank Vision fund included

[http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-
te...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-tech-fund-
target/index.html)

------
CoolGuySteve
While I understand Russian propaganda in the US election is disconcerting, I
feel like the fury over it is very reactionary.

There's nothing stopping someone on US soil from exercising their first
amendment rights in the same way to subvert an election. In fact I expect the
next presidential election will be dominated by the same tactics from local
organizations.

The susceptibility of Americans to shitty lies, conspiracy theories, and a
lack of numeracy is a vastly greater threat to the integrity of the US
government and much more difficult to fix.

~~~
zemo
> There's nothing stopping someone on US soil from exercising their first
> amendment rights in the same way to subvert an election.

Individuals exercising their first amendment rights do not have the same reach
as a propaganda apparatus of a major nation state. It's ridiculous to say that
one person has the same reach as a government propaganda machine.

~~~
anilshanbhag
The method in question is here RT using Twitter advertising to reach out to
millions of Twitter users. RT itself is small but the reach comes from the
cheap advertising. They spent ~ $250k in total which is pretty small compared
to total ad budget of a number of PACs. There are many individuals who donate
more than that amount and could easily spend it on Twitter ads.

~~~
leggomylibro
They also spent a lot of man-hours spreading and sharing that content, making
it look like it was supported by 'American citizen' sockpuppet accounts, and
coordinating that effort across several platforms to actively drive a
consistent and singular message.

Not the sort of thing that a grassroots could easily manage; buying a few
hundred ads was just a small part of the wider propaganda and sabotage.

Twitter has just been complete shit at figuring out what happened on their
platform, anyways; half of their 'identifications' come from, "Facebook told
us this account was a sockpuppet on their platform..."

~~~
grandalf
What content are you talking about? RT has published a lot of great stories
that are are not flattering to the US (such as about the Flint Michigan water
crisis) but are absolutely legitimate news stories that our corporate media
doesn't care to report on.

Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news reporting
by serving an underserved market? If learning more about the drastic
mishandling of the Flint Michigan water crisis stirs class conflict in
America, are you telling me you think that is a bad thing? It's what is
missing from our democracy!

~~~
FilterSweep
> Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news
> reporting by serving an underserved market?

What, exactly is the underserved market here? Who exactly are they serving
with propaganda?

~~~
grandalf
> propaganda

What is the propaganda you are referring to? You seem to assume all of RT's
content is propaganda but can't name or link to any stories that qualify. Lol.

------
alva
Also revealed today was slides from pitch desk Twitter provided RT, proposing
RT spend a large amount of money advertising during and about the US election.

[https://twitter.com/M_Simonyan/status/923519609269116928](https://twitter.com/M_Simonyan/status/923519609269116928)

edit: as questioned by comments below, there is no confirmation this is
authentic yet.

~~~
intopieces
What reason does anyone have to believe this is authentic?

------
grandalf
This is profoundly disappointing, and is yet another indication that Twitter
is clueless about being a platform and wants to be a content company. There
have been many other decisions where Twitter was tone-deaf about its platform
status, but this is perhaps the worst.

RT has had some great coverage of under-publicized issues in the US... issues
involving the poor, failing infrastructure, hypocrisy, etc. Yes it's not
flattering to the US that these stories are written, but they are true and
newsworthy and should absolutely not be suppressed.

During the election, RT ran a unflattering stories about both major
candidates. This is now being spun as "trying to sow discord" in the US.
Journalism is supposed to shine a light on things that need to be improved, it
is supposed to rally people to act to fix those problems.

If you read the major newspapers in the US, particularly in the section on
world affairs, there is a steady stream of stories that address the dangers of
living abroad, the corrupt politicians, the failing infrastructure, etc. These
stories may or may not be true (many are obviously overblown to anyone who has
visited those countries) but the purpose they serve is to help foster the idea
of American exceptionalism.

Our papers don't have to run headlines like "Americans happiest citizens in
the world" or "America has the cleanest water and the happiest children in the
world" when it can simply run stories that make other nations (particularly
political adversaries) seem far worse.

We still don't know much about the Hillary Clinton or Podesta emails as none
of the few possibly troubling things (mostly campaign finance violation stuff)
has been investigated. RT ran stories about that topic when it was fresh
during the election, even when the major US papers were focused mainly on rude
things Trump had said.

When RT first launched I was surprised that it was "allowed" to exist simply
because of its origin. But after reading the reporting for several years I
came to appreciate that it was offering a view of the US that was not really
available from American news outlets. This makes RT valuable to the sharing of
ideas and the creation of an informed public.

Twitter's decision to block the advertising is cowardly in so many ways.

~~~
bsparker
Twitter is an American company, and is publicly traded as such. They have a
responsibility to appease shareholders. This isn't really about politics at
all, or patriotism, it's about money.

~~~
creaghpatr
Not all of their shareholders are American, in fact much of the equity is
largely concentrated amongst a few relatively well known names

[https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-
owne...](https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-ownership-
takeover-acquisition-challenges)

------
dilap
$274,100 is a hilariously low number. Zero effect on the election.

It’s quite a remarkable thing to be in the eye of the storm of a mass
hysteria.

~~~
convery
This is what baffles me about the narrative. A candidate spent upwards of 1,3
billion on their campaign, had the backing of most mainstream media, celebrity
endorsements, back-room deals, and literal paid-shills on social media (CTR)
when they went against one of the most unpopular people in America. Yet
<300,000 in foreign advertising is what got the public to vote for the hated
candidate.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It doesn't add up in any way, and the whole thing is ridiculous on its face.
The only money that matters here is the money media platforms milk off the
outrage of people caused by making this a top story.

------
tertius
I wonder if they'll do the same for American propaganda abroad.

~~~
hennsen
That is, erm, sonethingh different, _cough_.

I also wonder what about lobbyism in general. Why is this allowed and the
other not. Because it’s good for economy? What if it’s still bad for society?

~~~
alexasmyths
Lobbyism is just 'someone making a case'. It's not unreasonable for
individuals or groups to 'lobby their cause' to politicians. It just has a bad
name because it can be abused.

And yes, it's not unreasonable for nation-state actors to take steps to thwart
American intervention in whatever.

Though often, the state in question is not elected, which begs a serious
question of legitimacy -> if you're going to make a 'moral equivalence'
argument of tit-for-tat interference ... it's hard to do if one side is a
dictatorship. :)

~~~
tertius
We're talking about Russia right? Not North Korea?

~~~
alexasmyths
Russia does not have open elections.

Political opposition figures, business figures and members of the press are
murdered or imprisoned arbitrarily.

Media networks and large businesses are arbitrarily confiscated.

Primary media channels are direct forms of state propaganda.

State agencies are deeply systematically corrupt - always in the control of
the friends of Putin, taking massive kickbacks, using state power to force
deals. Sochi is a good example of how these shennanigans work. See the CBC
expose on Sochi construction - kickbacks were up to 85% on construction (i.e.
state pays $500M for a building, most of it goes back to the buyer, a 'friend
of Putin'), and 15% goes into actual construction.

So it's not 'North Korea' but it's not a normal democracy, not by a stretch.

~~~
tertius
Ah, so a corrupt democracy.

~~~
alexasmyths
Classifications are so hard.

One could surely argue that America's democracy is somewhat corrupted as well.

I guess it's all a matter of manner and degree :)

------
moomin
Meanwhile, the plague of Twitter accounts that claim to be from Northampton
but keep St Peterburg office hours continues apace.

~~~
hidenotslide
It seems like this is the bigger problem. Few people think RT/Sputnik are
unbiased, but when you have some foreign intelligence agency micro-targeting
voters it's hard to even judge the extent of the influence operations taking
place.

They use pseudonyms and stock photos to seem like part of an in-group, then
amplify divisive hashtags and messaging. They disappear from historical
records when they delete the accounts, making it even harder to track their
activity.

Reddit, twitter, facebook, and newspaper comment sections are all filled with
disinformation and nobody seems to be doing much about it.

------
egeozcan
The response from RT: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/407858-rt-twitter-us-
election/](https://www.rt.com/op-edge/407858-rt-twitter-us-election/)

Also the news of the ban: [https://www.rt.com/news/407861-twitter-policy-rt-
accounts/](https://www.rt.com/news/407861-twitter-policy-rt-accounts/)

~~~
pizzetta
That's interesting, so at first Twitter wanted RT to spend more on the
election, to do more exposes and journalism with the elections as a backdrop
because having RT and others on their platform would be good for the company
(and the electorate having more information?)

But this was before they were against it --now apparently they, Twitter, had
made a bad calculus and RT might have benefitted the eventual winner more than
the then presumed winner.

------
djsumdog
This shouldn't matter or even be remotely relevant. Walled gardens and silos.
We know those terms, and we know we need to encourage people onto my
decentralized systems. Twitter, Google, Facebook, et. al. know they dictate
the narrative just as much as the major news networks; maybe even more so. And
there is so little hosting today that can scale that the big organizations can
effectively censor whoever they want:

[http://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-
corporate-c...](http://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-corporate-
censorship/)

If we had more open platforms that didn't filter and sift through everything
and run _fact checks_ (i.e. you're too stupid to do your own research so let's
tell you what to think), yes we'd have a lot more garbage .. but we'd have a
more unfiltered equal playing field where you'd also have much more of
everything.

Twitter is just another example of a filtered world that needs to die off.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>but we'd have a more unfiltered equal playing field where you'd also have
much more of everything.

The internet has shown that an unfiltered playing field is toxic to the
political knowledge of a populace. In an unfiltered playing field, virality
gets the eyeballs and fake news is inherently viral. The truth necessarily
loses.

------
Alex3917
Wasn't Twitter bragging about how they were interfering with the Iranian
elections a few years ago? Seems extremely hypocritical of them.

------
falcolas
If you've been following Twitter's business decisions over the years, this is
neither surprising nor unprecedented.

Twitter has a set of moral values, and isn't afraid to hurt its bottom line to
keep those values. For example, it has previously blocked consumers of the
firehose (companies in which Twitter has some significant ownership) from
selling aggregates of that data to the three letter agencies in the US
government.

Whether this move is good or bad for their bottom line, I have to applaud them
for sticking to their values.

------
MichaelGG
As a proponent of nationalism, I'm very pleased with this move. Now only if
Canada, Japan and Europe could get in on it, so each major area would have its
own social media. It's obvious that Twitter isn't going to block agents of the
US Government for similar "offences".

So despite how pathetic and partisan this is, hopefully it'll have great long
term secondary effects by siloing countries. Or at least a small step in that
direction.

------
matt_wulfeck
I feel an inflated sense of self-worth here. The only people who get swayed by
twitter ads are bots that are programmed to. I bet Silicon Valley is eating up
this national discussion around fake news and Russian ads.

Surely the only reason the country swung so strongly in the last election is
because of hacking/Facebook/Twitter/Russia etc. It has nothing to do with
things like economy and jobs /s

------
maxxxxx
Maybe the American political establishment should tell people not to believe
every nonsense they read and hear about. But then they would also have to give
up on their attack ads too... When I see attack ads most of them seem also
geared towards spreading baseless or distorted accusations so maybe the
American system should first clean up its own act before pointing fingers at
other countries.

------
codedokode
It is interesting that the case with Twitter looks similar to what happens in
Russia: many russian companies like advertisement agencies don't want to make
deals with opposition, major mass media don't cover anti-government protests.

Well, as a private company Twitter can decide for itself with whom they want
or don't want to make a deal. But is it their own independent decision I
wonder?

------
AzzieElbab
there is a difference between propaganda and simply stirring shit, pretending
to be anyone from black-lives-matter to white supremacists

------
SapphireSun
Whatever twitter. You still let the President threaten war and attack
individuals using your platform. We still haven't seen convincing evidence
that the Russian interference mattered, or even mattered more than our direct
assistance to Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s.

We have a sick and disintegrating society, blaming external enemies is way too
easy.

~~~
tertius
> You still let the President threaten war

I for one think the President should be allowed to do this. It may be illegal
for a regular citizen to do this, but not for the President.

The letter of the TOS vs. the spirit of the TOS.

He's(or she's) a special case, no?

~~~
SapphireSun
I think the spirit of the TOS of humanity (e.g. Article II paragraph 4 of the
UN Charter) would banish offensive war and the threat of war. These threats
are _worse_ coming from the president. His being the president doesn't make
these things more allowable, only our deference to hierarchy does.

Mere legalism is failing us, let alone the spirits of legalism. I'm not happy
about it.

~~~
tertius
> His being the president doesn't make these things more allowable, only our
> deference to hierarchy does.

You mean the constitution right?

~~~
SapphireSun
The constitution makes him the commander in chief and delegates war authority
to congress. The AUMF signed after 9/11 was poorly drafted, contained no
expiration, and has ceded control from congress to the executive in
extraordinary ways. Nuclear authorities that allow one man to destroy the
world have always been egregious since we instituted them.

Nonetheless, Commander in Chief ≠ Command of Twitter. A private entity doesn't
have to indulge him and such dissent is protected by the 1st amendment.

~~~
tertius
> The constitution makes him the commander in chief and delegates war
> authority to congress.

So yes, in deference to the constitution.

> Commander in Chief ≠ Command of Twitter. A private entity doesn't have to
> indulge him and such dissent is protected by the 1st amendment.

I don't know who you're arguing with here.

~~~
SapphireSun
I think you misunderstood what I meant by allowable. He can legally act using
the powers of his office, but we can shun him. It's morally abhorrent and
violates international law. It's only in a very limited sense that his
behavior is "allowable" even if that sense is the one that ends up mattering
practically.

~~~
tertius
> He can legally act using the powers of his office, but we can shun him.

Yes, he has legal rights. And they exist whether I like his actions or not. I
don't have those legal rights...

------
YouAreGreat
Well, there _is_ an explanation that doesn't make them look like complete
fools:

Supporting the "Russians stole election with paltry spend on social media"
narrative, they hope to encourage Americans to massively spend on social media
to "steal" coming elections...

~~~
Tasboo
You put it in quotes like it hasn't already been proven that Russian led a
massive effort to influence the election via social media.

~~~
YouAreGreat
What I've seen proven wasn't massive. If people can be convinced that non-
massive social media spending is as effective as is currently insinuated,
they'll likely spend. Mission accomplished.

There "culture wars" are approaching cold civil war status. Great times to be
a virtual arms dealer...

------
excalibur
If Twitter actually wanted to promote civic responsibility, they would ban
Donald Trump for repeated ToS violations and try to encourage him to be a
little more thoughtful about his proclamations to the world.

~~~
tertius
> be a little more thoughtful about his proclamations to the world.

Censoring the speech of the President is probably not something that they want
to get engaged with.

He's a special case. So I would argue that some of the terms should not apply
to him.

For instance, he has the right to make violent threats in certain
circumstances compared to normal citizens.

Whether I personally agree with his threats or tact is not important.

Now when he does something that he does not have the legal right to, I'll let
the courts handle that one.

~~~
albinofrenchy
> For instance, he has the right to make violent threats in certain
> circumstances compared to normal citizens.

No one has the 'right' to make violent threats on twitter. It is a private
service with a ToS.

There are no principled reasons to treat the president as a special case here.
The practical reason is simply that it is often and free advertising for them
and the terms of service dictate what they can do when breached; not what they
must do.

~~~
makomk
A ToS which the tweets people are complaining that Twitter didn't ban Trump
for did not violate. I mean, it should be obvious why Twitter doesn't consider
support for war to violate the ToS clause on violence - otherwise, every
publication which ran an op-ed supporting military intervention and linked it
on Twitter would be violating the ToS. Not only that, there was a huge overlap
between the people calling for Trump to be banned and the pro-nazi-punching
(and pro-punching-anyone-who-wasn't-pro-nazi-punching) crowd who had been
taking full advantage of the laxity of Twitter's "violence" clause in the ToS.

There underlying logic of the demands made no sense at all, but it didn't
matter. Believing Trump had violated the Twitter ToS and should be banned was
simply something you did if you weren't an evil Nazi Trump supporter.

~~~
albinofrenchy
Trump has violated that TOS aplenty[0]. The NK non-sense wasn't even the first
thing I thought violated the TOS; he basically harasses someone new every few
weeks punctuated by retweeting gifs of him punching CNN or knocking Clinton
out with a golf ball.

0: [https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-ban-donald-
trump/](https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-ban-donald-trump/)

------
DonHopkins
If they wanted to live up to their civic duty, they would kick Donald Trump
off for bullying, and kick Melania Trump off for trolling that she would do
something to stop bullying.

------
allenleein
Twitter is doing a better job than @Facebook on Russian ad/election
interference work - but both entities weren't doing enough pre-election.

------
sgarrity
"off-board"?

~~~
athenot
The opposite of on-board. It's a ship metaphor.

~~~
DonHopkins
Disembark.

What would they call walking the plank: transplanking? Going down with the
ship: defloating?

------
truxus
RT and Sputnik are weapons of information warfare. It would be rational for
USA's society and government to end their toleration of Russian media in
domestic space. The only legitimate reason for Russia to have US news media
arms is to show public discord and private confusion. I don't know why this
even needs to be discussed. There exist some foriegn nation's who's objectives
and values align with the US, but Russia is not one of them.

------
gressquel
this is great news. There is journalism, and then there is agenda-based LIES.
RT and their likes are lying to create chaos in the western world. They make
up things out of nothing.

Wish youtube banned RT aswell.

------
raprp
Breaking: Clinton Colluded With Russia To Smear Trump During Election!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waGnHlRIsWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waGnHlRIsWM)

~~~
raprp
Washington Post: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia
dossier

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/clint...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-
dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html)

------
indubitable
This seems unusual. Other nations discussing the politics of yet other nations
is par for the course, including with a nationalist spin from the originating
country. What precisely made RT's ads notably grievous? I think examples of
what they showed that was completely unacceptable would be valuable in helping
people come to an informed conclusion. It would also help other advertisers
ensure they don't cross whatever invisible boundaries have been set.

Things look particularly peculiar when we look at them in reverse.
@GolosAmeriki is the Twitter for the Russian language Voice of America, which
is our own state run news come propaganda organization. This [1] is their
webpage providing content primarily to Russian speaking viewers on topics
related to Russia. And the material as could be expected tends to be
incredibly critical of Russia, Putin, and other interests which do not
necessarily align with US interests. And we're quite expansive. You can find
regional Voice of America 'implementations' for a whole plethora of nations
here. [2] The coverage could easy be labeled as attempting to "sew discord".
But that's because presenting information that does not present a nation in a
positive light can always be considered "sewing discord" even if it's a
critical and productive part of progress.

The primary benefit of foreign coverage is that it does not need to play by
the same rules as domestic coverage. Even private interests are subject to
problems. For instance the press has no legal right to access to politicians.
There's certainly a sort of symbiosis between politicians and the reporters,
but it creates artificial boundaries. On top of this the day in, day out
interactions between reporters and the people they report on results in
relationships forming. These can be positive or negative relationships but
that adds yet another layer of bias to coverage. All those problems without
even getting into the dirtier aspects of society...

But these sort of issues are mitigated to a large degree when viewing things
through a foreign nation's eyes. So long as their material is not overtly
lying, I think these news come propaganda channels have substantial
informative value for citizens. It's important to understand that it will be
biased, but it's equally important to understand that of domestic news as
well. It seems a shame that Twitter are going this route. Hopefully this is
not the beginning of an effort to restrict foreign inflows of information.

[1] - [https://www.golos-ameriki.ru/](https://www.golos-ameriki.ru/)

[2] -
[https://www.voanews.com/navigation/allsites](https://www.voanews.com/navigation/allsites)

------
cryptoz
It doesn't matter, twitter. Delete the bots, ban the people making them, use
ML to find out how they make so many and look so convincing to Americans, be
transparent about how many people vs. bots you have. Or go home.

Right, you can't do any of that because then your shareholders would know
about your hugely inflated growth numbers and your stock would collapse. I
wonder, Twitter is so much worse for society than anyone ever knew, and they
have been so quiet and complacent in the Russian takeover of the USA, that
maybe they have acted illegally? Is it possible Twitter has been lying about
bot account numbers and inflating their userbase counts to increase share
value?

Okay, kick off the ads made by Russian enemies of the USA, that's a good move.
But why did you allow it in the first place? Because of the money, and because
nobody thought at Twitter than Russians buying political ads is a bad idea?
The purchased ads weren't even the main issue - it's the millions and millions
of bots echoing racist and hateful things to divide and wreck the US.

Fuck twitter.

This isn't enough. Apologize for the Russian takeover that you let happen.
Don't donate that money to some cause about civic debates in the future.
America is under attack right now. Give that money to someone who can stop the
Russians because it's not you or your civic debates.

~~~
megous
What would be next? Google apologizing that you can find misinformation on the
web? Paper apologizing for people writing on it?

~~~
toomanyrichies
This is called the "slippery slope fallacy".

[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-
slope.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

~~~
jakebasile
I don't think the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, it can be a genuine
concern that is too easily written off as a "fallacy".

~~~
Koshkin
But what's next? All known fallacies becoming "genuine concerns"?

~~~
jakebasile
What I mean is that just writing off someone's concerns because it is a so-
called fallacy instead of actually addressing their concern isn't ideal.

"This actually isn't a slippery slope because $REFUTATION" is better than
"That's just a slippery slope fallacy".

