Social media is it Toxic Bubble...

I don't care which way you voted, but simply that your vote was in a fair and properly run event.
Lets say, for a just a minute, that Russians did interfere with the referendum (obviously providing information, rather than manipulating actual vote numbers)

How exactly did that stop Mr.Bloggs from casting his own vote the way he wanted to? why do you think that someone exercising their right to vote Leave means that they were somehow coerced?

Vlad had zero impact on my vote, nor any of my family and friends that voted to leave.

Its a bollocks story that is being used, ironically, to undermine the vote and force a re-run to get the correct decision.

Edit: Just of curiosity, which way did you vote? (I suspect I already know the answer).
 
@Oxygen_Thief

I don't actually care about the decision. I just want to be sure it was our decision.
 
What mechanism do you have in mind to prove conclusively that it wasn't?

Twitter posts?

Subverted returning officers?

Come to think of it, how do we know those £3 Tories weren't all Vlad's mates?
Well, I would go back to identify social media accounts of interest, and then through the posting of those social media accounts in order to build up a history.

Bit like what has been done by US analysts.

Hamilton 68: Tracking Putin's Propaganda Push... To America

After all, HMG is spending some time and money on the topic.
“We will build on existing capabilities by creating a dedicated national security communications unit. This will be tasked with combating disinformation by state actors and others. It will more systematically deter our adversaries and help us deliver on national security priorities,
UK to set up security unit to combat state disinformation campaigns
 
Well, I would go back to identify social media accounts of interest, and then through the posting of those social media accounts in order to build up a history.

Bit like what has been done by US analysts.

Hamilton 68: Tracking Putin's Propaganda Push... To America

After all, HMG is spending some time and money on the topic.


UK to set up security unit to combat state disinformation campaigns
Hmm.

We have been told, after all, at great length - backed up by graphs and charts - that vicious, racist old people voted for Leave, while caring, tolerant youth voted to Remain. How do you square that with all this talk of malign social media influence by "state actors" which has clearly had little or no effect on the majority of those most likely to be actually influenced by social media - the idealistic youth/generation snowflake?
 
@Oxygen_Thief

I don't actually care about the decision. I just want to be sure it was our decision.
Fair play, but i fail to see how Russians or anyone materially affected the vote.

Most people either know from the outset their preference, or will research from various sources.

If people were so malleable as to believe any piece of information given to them then Remain would have won a landslide. The leaflet of doom being the obvious source.

If you believe RT and it said selling your house was a good idea, would you go out and sell it purely on that basis? No, of course you wouldn’t.

Plus, there’s absolutely no evidence to support the ‘claim’ (effectively a conspiracy theory as of now).
 
I guess if you can portray a part of the electorate negatively - old, pale, stale, badly informed, racist etc., and another favourably, - optimistic, enlightened, informed, educated, unprejudiced - which would you rather be considered as. (assuming you're not very firmly one of them/badly informed).

I noticed how various party's both, UK and US have been categorically labelled, often with a skewed narrative.

I'd consider that as agendas being driven, truth being skewed - not accurate or truthful reporting. Fake news is just a further augmentation of that - even pushing an envelope to see what degree of BS can be believed.
We've got some seriously inept politicians, statesmen and flaky regimes almost universally and much of their respective populations either actively support them or can"t see how inept they are.
Trump and Clinton
May and Corbyn
Merkel, Erdogan, Putin.

I'm sure that such a confluence hasn't always been this historically bad.
 
There is a difference between campaigning (however one may agree or disagree with it) and the manipulation of social media in order to influence critical nodes within the public.
How are they different? Aside from being overt and covert, they’re the same thing.

Although many recent ‘legitimate’ political campaigns have been both. So I fail to see the distinction.

Define ‘critical node’.
 
How are they different? Aside from being overt and covert, they’re the same thing.

Although many recent ‘legitimate’ political campaigns have been both. So I fail to see the distinction.

Define ‘critical node’.
Well, I would not agree that about poitical campaign and influence.

Firstly, one is politics conducted within a nation state by lawful actors. The other is a foreign adversary attempting to influence events in line with that country's policy.

For example, it is alleged the Russians go from "overt" (IE, what they churn out on RT), to Grey (IE, leaked via Wikileaks but favourable to Russian foreign policy agenda) and then the "black" (false profiles messaging on social media, to use of proxy online actores to attack political opponents).




As to critical nodes, it is waste of of time to adopt a "one message fits all". With the alleged theft of voter registration and other targeting data, an advanced persistent threat could well be in a position to concentrate upon a "critical node". What do I mean by that?

he [Trump] won three states that most observers expected to go to Clinton by a total margin of 77,744. Were the Russian efforts enough to have moved 77,744 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?
If a group were to accurately data profile these constituncies and likely messages, an attempt to support a preferred candidate could be made.

Which is what I understand the indictment of the GRU officers alleges.

I have not seen anyone credibily say what any impact has been. But that lack of certainty has more credibility than Trump's blanket "nothing to see here".

It's not just the Russians, here is a recent example of alleged behaviour from the Iranians.

Suspected Iranian Influence Operation Leverages Network of Inauthentic News Sites & Social Media Targeting Audiences in U.S., UK, Latin America, Middle East « Suspected Iranian Influence Operation Leverages Network of Inauthentic News Sites & Social Media Targeting Audiences in U.S., UK, Latin America, Middle East | FireEye Inc
 
Well, I would not agree that about poitical campaign and influence.

Firstly, one is politics conducted within a nation state by lawful actors. The other is a foreign adversary attempting to influence events in line with that country's policy.

For example, it is alleged the Russians go from "overt" (IE, what they churn out on RT), to Grey (IE, leaked via Wikileaks but favourable to Russian foreign policy agenda) and then the "black" (false profiles messaging on social media, to use of proxy online actores to attack political opponents).




As to critical nodes, it is waste of of time to adopt a "one message fits all". With the alleged theft of voter registration and other targeting data, an advanced persistent threat could well be in a position to concentrate upon a "critical node". What do I mean by that?



If a group were to accurately data profile these constituncies and likely messages, an attempt to support a preferred candidate could be made.

Which is what I understand the indictment of the GRU officers alleges.

I have not seen anyone credibily say what any impact has been. But that lack of certainty has more credibility than Trump's blanket "nothing to see here".

It's not just the Russians, here is a recent example of alleged behaviour from the Iranians.

Suspected Iranian Influence Operation Leverages Network of Inauthentic News Sites & Social Media Targeting Audiences in U.S., UK, Latin America, Middle East « Suspected Iranian Influence Operation Leverages Network of Inauthentic News Sites & Social Media Targeting Audiences in U.S., UK, Latin America, Middle East | FireEye Inc
Happens I agree with you that states have tried to influence political outcomes by subtle information campaigning. However, I don’t believe it has material effect on normal people’s opinions.

Also, whilst we have adversaries that engage in this, we also have ‘friends’ that do it too. The US had a vested interest in our remaining in the EU hence St.Obama sticking his oar in. Which was a cosy agreement between him and arch-remainder Cameron.

To be fair though, we regularly influence other countries. And they don’t necessarily think we have their best interests at heart either. And often we don’t.

That has always been the nature of the game.
 
Last edited:
@Oxygen_Thief

And here was me thinking the Information Research Department of the FCO just spent all their time speaking the truth..... :eek:

It's a bit like "cyber" it seems to me. We're massively vulnerable to it, and the bad guys have worked out what a great way it is to bring us down.
 
Social change and attitudes come about because people are awake to the narrative and do not like it, The narrative that they have funded. Social media has replaced the word on the street.

The establishment and now the media giants are seeking to control their narrative even further by controlling our social media content, Russian influenced or not, this alone tells you everything you need to know.

For example, We didn't need the Russians to tell us how corrupt, out of touch and undemocratic the EU is, You had to be a complete idiot not to see what it is, Social media was in its infancy but yet somehow Russia is being nudged as a culprit for anti-EU sentiment and social media it's tool, It's all bollocks in that case.
The Germans are even controlling what is said on social media which may be critical of its policies, Now our very own media giants are seeking to do the same, They call it fake news, I call it the ability to call them out for what they are and what they support.

When any establishment seeks to control the digital "word on the street", people will stop using it and lump it alongside all the other "narrative" driven bullshit which includes most of the mainstream media.

I see people who support this similar to turkey's actively voting for more Christmas.
What kind of person supports the position of an establishment controlling what you think, you don't have to look too far back in history to figure that one out.

Sure foreign governments seek to undermine by means of social media, Our establishment does the very same thing using the media giants.

You can boil it all down to one group of people who have their jobs threatened will do anything to maintain their wage packet, which also happens to be your money, that includes controlling what you think by any means possible. Take the sum of UK taxation, chuck in some high salaries and perks, Then multiply the sum with the what I have suggested, You get my drift.

Control by any means possible.
 
Last edited:
I’ve got into a few debates on here about measuring influence. Apparently the FCO can’t work out how to measure their “influence”. Perhaps that’s because they’ve completely missed the global change that is social media.

From my own marketing experience, measuring influence on social is relatively easy. You can pretty much guarantee that the Russians are operating to a well developed plan that measures effects and costs.
 
I’ve got into a few debates on here about measuring influence. Apparently the FCO can’t work out how to measure their “influence”. Perhaps that’s because they’ve completely missed the global change that is social media.

From my own marketing experience, measuring influence on social is relatively easy. You can pretty much guarantee that the Russians are operating to a well developed plan that measures effects and costs.
"Ah yes, it's all cyber these days, old man. Don't understand it meself. All backroom boffins and whizzy computer thingys, what?"

Your grandchildren are hacking your future. With their phones.

You have as much chance of stopping them as you have beating them in a flossing dance-off.
 
It's always worth remembering this


Of course worth remembering that he was a co-founder of The Pirate Bay. May not be to everyone's taste.
 
"Ah yes, it's all cyber these days, old man. Don't understand it meself. All backroom boffins and whizzy computer thingys, what?"

Your grandchildren are hacking your future. With their phones.

You have as much chance of stopping them as you have beating them in a flossing dance-off.
Exactly, but why would you want to stop them. We’re watching a profound change in the way people connect and what they can do, no different from the Industrial Revolution or other major change points. Much of it is good, some freaky and some really bad. That’s life.
 
Exactly, but why would you want to stop them. We’re watching a profound change in the way people connect and what they can do, no different from the Industrial Revolution or other major change points. Much of it is good, some freaky and some really bad. That’s life.
My bookstand is stacking up a bit right now (I still like paper books over kindle, must be my age), but several address that theme.

The Death of the Gods: Not scared of tech yet? You haven't been paying attention

I bought that whilst still reading Jamie Bartlett's "People Vs Tech"

The People vs Tech by Jamie Bartlett review – once more into the digital apocalypse

And I see this is out soon


We're into the first published reaction to the nonsense of Cambridge Analytica and so forth (aside from various on-line criticisms). It all makes for fund reading, but will churn it around in the smoothie maker of my brain to try and see if it makes the world any clearer.

It may be that the future is unclear - like the description in Neuromancer,

The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel.
 
My bookstand is stacking up a bit right now (I still like paper books over kindle, must be my age), but several address that theme.

The Death of the Gods: Not scared of tech yet? You haven't been paying attention

I bought that whilst still reading Jamie Bartlett's "People Vs Tech"

The People vs Tech by Jamie Bartlett review – once more into the digital apocalypse

And I see this is out soon


We're into the first published reaction to the nonsense of Cambridge Analytica and so forth (aside from various on-line criticisms). It all makes for fund reading, but will churn it around in the smoothie maker of my brain to try and see if it makes the world any clearer.

It may be that the future is unclear - like the description in Neuromancer,
I’ve read Bartlett.

His base assumption is that modern democracy is actually any good. In fact, it’s a relatively new construct (universal suffrage is less than a century old) that often isn’t very democratic at all.

Whatever modern democratic model you choose, it follows an agency model. Those who get into power often do so for the want of power. Few have excercised that power in a truly honourable way.

So I think there’s a counter arguement that social media provides a truly democratic platform for those who are often disenfranchised by modern democracy.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top