new report on Russian meddling ...

[oxmixmudd]

Source: cnn

The Russians focused on turning out conservatives to vote with messaging about gun rights and immigration, according to the Post, and spread misinformation to left-leaning African-American voters about how to vote to and tried to undermine their faith in elections. Many other groups, including Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, Southerners and veterans, were also targeted by thousands of social media accounts controlled by Russians, the Post reported.
"What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the draft of the report obtained by the Post reads. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign."
"The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting," the report continues, according to the Post.
The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't announced if it supports the report's findings, but it plans to publicly release the report along with another separate report later this week, the Post reported.

© Copyright Original Source

The main report can be found below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.3fdedafe3b85

Just a little bit more information for those that continually claim there is no 'proof' the Russians were working to help DT get elected.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

Source: cnn

The Russians focused on turning out conservatives to vote with messaging about gun rights and immigration, according to the Post, and spread misinformation to left-leaning African-American voters about how to vote to and tried to undermine their faith in elections. Many other groups, including Latinos, Muslims, Christians, gay men and women, liberals, Southerners and veterans, were also targeted by thousands of social media accounts controlled by Russians, the Post reported.
"What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the draft of the report obtained by the Post reads. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign."
"The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting," the report continues, according to the Post.
The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't announced if it supports the report's findings, but it plans to publicly release the report along with another separate report later this week, the Post reported.

© Copyright Original Source

The main report can be found below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.3fdedafe3b85

Just a little bit more information for those that continually claim there is no 'proof' the Russians were working to help DT get elected.

Jim

The claim is that there is no proof that Trump agreed to any of this.

[Cow Poke]

Have we moved from "collusion" to "meddling"?

[Mountain Man]

Just a little bit more information for those that continually claim there is no 'proof' the Russians were working to help DT get elected.

Funny how the report left out that these same "Russian trolls" also organized anti-Trump rallies and racked up an impressive number of followers posting anti-Trump messages to Twitter.

Even anti-Trump Senator Mark Warner of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that "there is no Democratic or Republican answer since clearly the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other. It was to wreak havoc and split divisions."

[rogue06]

Funny how the report left out that these same "Russian trolls" also organized anti-Trump rallies and racked up an impressive number of followers posting anti-Trump messages to Twitter.

Even anti-Trump Senator Mark Warner of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that "there is no Democratic or Republican answer since clearly the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other. It was to wreak havoc and split divisions."

They appear to have omitted several facts that have been previously report such as it looks like in total they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the majority coming after the election.

I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total^[1]. That's equivalent to something like 1 or maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. And again, not per battleground state but total.

And for some perspective, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

So

• a minuscule amount was spent.
• the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
• a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
• 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
• and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

What's more, on the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (after their publicity stunt indictment blew up in his face when they showed up and he started stammering out a list of excuses why he suddenly didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

00000000000000ab0.04.jpg

In case anyone had trouble reading his tweets:

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

Goldman later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times^[2]Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct PBS program Inside Washington that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president:










1. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

2.Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence

[Bill the Cat]

They appear to have omitted several facts that have been previously report such as it looks like in total they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the majority coming after the election.

I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total^[1]. That's equivalent to something like 1 or maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. And again, not per battleground state but total.

And for some perspective, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

So

• a minuscule amount was spent.
• the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
• a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
• 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
• and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

What's more, on the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (after their publicity stunt indictment blew up in his face when they showed up and he started stammering out a list of excuses why he suddenly didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33877[/ATTACH]

In case anyone had trouble reading his tweets:

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

Goldman later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times^[2]Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct PBS program Inside Washington that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president:










1. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

2.Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence

izcOK4m.gif

[rogue06]

00000000000000ab0.04.jpg

GIF snicker.gif

[Mountain Man]

DdawG-lU0AU-8K4.jpg
DdaybVwVMAArR4z.jpg
DdandilVQAEJMqr.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

Funny how the report left out that these same "Russian trolls" also organized anti-Trump rallies and racked up an impressive number of followers posting anti-Trump messages to Twitter.

Even anti-Trump Senator Mark Warner of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that "there is no Democratic or Republican answer since clearly the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other. It was to wreak havoc and split divisions."

There you are quoting this guy again. This report would show he is wrong.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

The claim is that there is no proof that Trump agreed to any of this.

There have been several instances over the last month where there have been flat out denials that Russia's interference in our elections was targetted at boosting Trump's overal performance in the election. The claim has been from those supporting trump that the evidence only pointed to general disruption, not to specific goals.

Even after I posted a link to a CIA report saying they were aiming their efforts at helping Trump, it was claimed that certain senators on the investigation had concluded the opposite, only that the Russians had tried to disrupt, but without any specific targeted goal other than disruption.

THIS report sheds more light on that, with a conclusion that matches that of the original CIA assessment.

And that is why I posted it and started a thread on it.

In general, the push back has been collusion when there is no evidence the Russians where in fact directly supporting Trump, and calling the CIA report 'old' and superceded by (certain) recent announcements.

This report is yet more confirmation they were in fact helping Trump. It doesn't prove Trump directly colluded, but it does kill argument that there could not have been Collusion because the Russians were not
actually trying to get Trump elected.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

This report is yet more confirmation they were in fact helping Trump.

Yes, but only if you ignore all the evidence of anti-Trump activities from these same "Russian trolls". Don't you find it just a little suspicious that this report leaves that out?

[Bill the Cat]

There have been several instances over the last month where there have been flat out denials that Russia's interference in our elections was targetted at boosting Trump's overal performance in the election. The claim has been from those supporting trump that the evidence only pointed to general disruption, not to specific goals.

Even after I posted a link to a CIA report saying they were aiming their efforts at helping Trump, it was claimed that certain senators on the investigation had concluded the opposite, only that the Russians had tried to disrupt, but without any specific targeted goal other than disruption.

THIS report sheds more light on that, with a conclusion that matches that of the original CIA assessment.

And that is why I posted it and started a thread on it.

In general, the push back has been collusion when there is no evidence the Russians where in fact directly supporting Trump, and calling the CIA report 'old' and superceded by (certain) recent announcements.

This report is yet more confirmation they were in fact helping Trump. It doesn't prove Trump directly colluded, but it does kill argument that there could not have been Collusion because the Russians were not
actually trying to get Trump elected.

Jim

Meaning it is an opinion piece, and as Rogue so eloquently demolished, is fraught with over-exaggerations.

[oxmixmudd]

Meaning it is an opinion piece, and as Rogue so eloquently demolished, is fraught with over-exaggerations.

This is not 'an opinion piece'. It was a report:



It is the paragraph after the above that says:



The point is, this is a detailed analysis of a large amount of data provided by key internet organizations used by the Russians.

Rogue's tirade on funding* is just naive. Cyber operations are generally "Asymmetric Operations" (go look it up). That is - the effect of the operation costs the enemy a great deal more than the operation itself costs the combatant. IOW, what the Russians did was really cost effective for them. It didn't cost them a lot, and what they got was ostensibly the possibility of selecting which American gets elected - one Friendly to Putin, or one openly hostile to him.

Jim

*I am not here implying that is the full content of Rogue's reply.

[oxmixmudd]

They appear to have omitted several facts that have been previously report such as it looks like in total they spent less than what a restaurant chain does in running commercials in a large city -- with the majority coming after the election.

I think it was Bryon York who did some quick analysis and discovered that these guys spent all of a whopping $3200 in all of the battleground states. Not per state but total^[1]. That's equivalent to something like 1 or maybe 2 late night commercials on a local station. And again, not per battleground state but total.

And for some perspective, when Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, testified before the Senate about Russian interference in the election he said that they constituted "about four-thousands of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

According to Facebook they were spending around $100,000 on Facebook and Instagram combined -- a drop in the bucket in a presidential campaign. Further, again according to Facebook, most of the time they showed up in a person's news feed was after the election (with only 44% before the election and 56% after it) and 25% of them were seen by nobody at all.

What's more, concerning these ads Facebook reported that, "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

So

• a minuscule amount was spent.
• the ads equaled about 0.004% of the contents in News Feed
• a decided majority of those who actually saw the ads only saw them after the election.
• 25% of the ads were never seen by anyone before or after the election.
• and Facebook said "the vast majority [of them] didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."

What's more, on the day after Mueller released the 13 Russians back in February (after their publicity stunt indictment blew up in his face when they showed up and he started stammering out a list of excuses why he suddenly didn't want to prosecute them) Facebook ads vice-president Rob Goldman issued several tweets that was studiously ignored by most of the MSM since it contradicted the account they wanted to push.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33877[/ATTACH]

In case anyone had trouble reading his tweets:

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

Goldman later got in trouble with his bosses for, as the New York Times^[2]Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted on the now defunct PBS program Inside Washington that media support was worth up to 15 points to John Kerry in his bid to be president:










1. In battleground states, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, they spent a whopping $1979 on ads targeting Wisconsin. In Michigan the total spent was $823. And in Pennsylvania, it was $300.

2.Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence

This is all old data, old opinions based on weak analysis and small data sets. This is a new, comprehensive report by a research organization. You can't just trot out old opinions, old assessments and assume that lays it to rest.

You would have done much better Rogue to have looked at its content and researched it a bit before trotting out your old sources to rebut this thing. You made your Trump loyalists happy. But you'll need a lot more than that in the long run.

The real bottom line to this is that Russia's efforts were in fact aimed at hindering Clinton and boosting Trump's success. That is the point of me starting this thread. That is the new bit, the bit that makes a real difference.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Whatever minimal influence Russia might have had on the election was likely significantly less than the influence the mainstream media had with their excessively negative reporting on Trump and endless puff-pieces about how great President Hillary is going to be.