Russian hacking - what does it really mean?
Feb 18, 2017 14:17:48 GMT
twinsmomfla99 and crazy4scraps like this
Post by pyccku on Feb 18, 2017 14:17:48 GMT
I know that this term has been thrown about a lot, with some saying that it's horrible - but also others feeling that as long as they didn't actually hack our voting machines or change how the vote was calculated, no biggie - they kept Hillary out of office, and that's a good thing.
I don't care if you voted for Hillary, Trump, or someone else - this is something that should concern you very much.
A quote from yesterday: [Sen. Mark] Warner said. "But the amount of manipulation, why there's not more outrage about the fact there were close to 1,000 Russian internet trolls, actual people, working trying to manipulate our news."
What exactly does this mean?
Their cyberwar against the US and the west (which is continuing, now focused on elections in France and other European countries) has been very successful, thanks to the ability to target certain people - people who are the most likely to be swayed by certain types of stories, etc.
The 'hacking' is done in multiple ways. First, there is a small army of workers whose job it is to post as often as they can, promoting certain views (not always pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, but also pro-Russia views) to people. This may be something like making arguments that "some NATO members aren't paying their fair share - why should the US keep defending them?" or "NATO is an alliance that has outlived its usefulness - wouldn't it be better to have MORE allies and work with Russia against ISIS?" These things may make you think that hmmm, maybe we should reconsider NATO, or maybe Russia would be a good ally. These are complete 180 turns from US foreign policy for the last 50+ years - why would we all of a sudden start making an about face? Well, those aren't actually American views. Most people agree that NATO has been instrumental in keeping the peace since the post-WW2 era. But hey - shouldn't we at least think about it? These are actually Russian views, and it benefits them to have a weakened Europe/NATO alliance. They are getting people to consider their view, though - and that's a big thing. Now you'll have Americans reading it, talking points being made of it, and all of a sudden it feels like 'Americans' are questioning the usefulness of NATO and whether we should continue our role in it. These posts are made on reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. - comments all over the place from people with American-sounding names, but the posts don't originate in America. Oftentimes, these posts will be hit and run, making the comment and then moving on. If you engage them in 'debate' they won't argue with you, they'll just keep stating the original talking point. Sometimes the same comment will be made (especially on twitter) by hundreds of different accounts - not retweets, but people who managed to simultaneously come up with the same wording of the same talking point and just happened to tweets it within a short period of time.
Another method is actually more disconcerting, and it involves data collection. This is the part that should be disturbing to everyone. You know how when you look up something, all of a sudden you start seeing ads for that product EVERYWHERE? I remember the 'ugly pants' incident here on NSBR - after someone shared a link to some ugly pants, peas went to look at them and for the next 2 weeks, everyone was getting ads for the ugly pants on their FB, and everywhere else that sells ad space.
A company - Cambridge Analytica has developed a way of predicting behavior based on data collection through social media. They are able to use your facebook likes to predict your beliefs and behavior: "“with a mere ten ‘likes’ as input his model could appraise a person’s character better than an average coworker. With seventy, it could ‘know’ a subject better than a friend; with 150 likes, better than their parents. With 300 likes, Kosinski’s machine could predict a subject’s behavior better than their partner. With even more likes it could exceed what a person thinks they know about themselves.”
By using the data they collected, they were able to target specific people with specific stories and ads. They were able to test which versions of stories got more clicks/shares with certain people, then they were able to share those stories with other people who had similar characteristics. They were able to microtarget viewers and manipulate their opinions by telling them exactly what they wanted them to believe in a way that they were most likely to accept the information. And of course, these stories had a nice section of comments from helpful "fellow Americans" to show that the opinions were reasonable and popular among red-blooded, patriotic "Americans" everywhere. So people were shown what they wanted to see, and their biases were confirmed by the comments they saw.
This data was used to target specific people - but not just those people, but their friends as well. All of those apps that allow the app to view your friends? It can use that info to target friends who may be receptive to the same stories and ads.
You may be happy with the results of the election. But are you happy with a company like CA using your data to specifically target you with information that may or may not be true - but that they are nearly certain will change/mold your opinion of an issue or a candidate? How do you know that this information won't be used by a candidate you don't agree with next time - what if a candidate from an opposing party told you what you wanted to hear and made you think that their candidate deserved your vote - not because they objectively were the candidate aligned with your beliefs and priorities, but because they were able to target you based on your personality and behavioral predictions?
Are you ok with your data being used this way? Knowing this, can you still say that "Russian hacking" is no big deal, since they didn't actually hack the vote? They didn't hack the vote - the hacked the voters.
You can read a much more in-depth article here.
I don't care if you voted for Hillary, Trump, or someone else - this is something that should concern you very much.
A quote from yesterday: [Sen. Mark] Warner said. "But the amount of manipulation, why there's not more outrage about the fact there were close to 1,000 Russian internet trolls, actual people, working trying to manipulate our news."
What exactly does this mean?
Their cyberwar against the US and the west (which is continuing, now focused on elections in France and other European countries) has been very successful, thanks to the ability to target certain people - people who are the most likely to be swayed by certain types of stories, etc.
The 'hacking' is done in multiple ways. First, there is a small army of workers whose job it is to post as often as they can, promoting certain views (not always pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, but also pro-Russia views) to people. This may be something like making arguments that "some NATO members aren't paying their fair share - why should the US keep defending them?" or "NATO is an alliance that has outlived its usefulness - wouldn't it be better to have MORE allies and work with Russia against ISIS?" These things may make you think that hmmm, maybe we should reconsider NATO, or maybe Russia would be a good ally. These are complete 180 turns from US foreign policy for the last 50+ years - why would we all of a sudden start making an about face? Well, those aren't actually American views. Most people agree that NATO has been instrumental in keeping the peace since the post-WW2 era. But hey - shouldn't we at least think about it? These are actually Russian views, and it benefits them to have a weakened Europe/NATO alliance. They are getting people to consider their view, though - and that's a big thing. Now you'll have Americans reading it, talking points being made of it, and all of a sudden it feels like 'Americans' are questioning the usefulness of NATO and whether we should continue our role in it. These posts are made on reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. - comments all over the place from people with American-sounding names, but the posts don't originate in America. Oftentimes, these posts will be hit and run, making the comment and then moving on. If you engage them in 'debate' they won't argue with you, they'll just keep stating the original talking point. Sometimes the same comment will be made (especially on twitter) by hundreds of different accounts - not retweets, but people who managed to simultaneously come up with the same wording of the same talking point and just happened to tweets it within a short period of time.
Another method is actually more disconcerting, and it involves data collection. This is the part that should be disturbing to everyone. You know how when you look up something, all of a sudden you start seeing ads for that product EVERYWHERE? I remember the 'ugly pants' incident here on NSBR - after someone shared a link to some ugly pants, peas went to look at them and for the next 2 weeks, everyone was getting ads for the ugly pants on their FB, and everywhere else that sells ad space.
A company - Cambridge Analytica has developed a way of predicting behavior based on data collection through social media. They are able to use your facebook likes to predict your beliefs and behavior: "“with a mere ten ‘likes’ as input his model could appraise a person’s character better than an average coworker. With seventy, it could ‘know’ a subject better than a friend; with 150 likes, better than their parents. With 300 likes, Kosinski’s machine could predict a subject’s behavior better than their partner. With even more likes it could exceed what a person thinks they know about themselves.”
By using the data they collected, they were able to target specific people with specific stories and ads. They were able to test which versions of stories got more clicks/shares with certain people, then they were able to share those stories with other people who had similar characteristics. They were able to microtarget viewers and manipulate their opinions by telling them exactly what they wanted them to believe in a way that they were most likely to accept the information. And of course, these stories had a nice section of comments from helpful "fellow Americans" to show that the opinions were reasonable and popular among red-blooded, patriotic "Americans" everywhere. So people were shown what they wanted to see, and their biases were confirmed by the comments they saw.
This data was used to target specific people - but not just those people, but their friends as well. All of those apps that allow the app to view your friends? It can use that info to target friends who may be receptive to the same stories and ads.
You may be happy with the results of the election. But are you happy with a company like CA using your data to specifically target you with information that may or may not be true - but that they are nearly certain will change/mold your opinion of an issue or a candidate? How do you know that this information won't be used by a candidate you don't agree with next time - what if a candidate from an opposing party told you what you wanted to hear and made you think that their candidate deserved your vote - not because they objectively were the candidate aligned with your beliefs and priorities, but because they were able to target you based on your personality and behavioral predictions?
Are you ok with your data being used this way? Knowing this, can you still say that "Russian hacking" is no big deal, since they didn't actually hack the vote? They didn't hack the vote - the hacked the voters.
You can read a much more in-depth article here.
