gvdr :julia:@caparsons argh, paywalled. Is there a link to some scientific paper assessing the impact?
Grant 🇺🇦ArmUkraine🇺🇦@gvdr @caparsons The article discusses how the report claiming there was no impact is actually incorrect. The headline is utter BS
@Grant_M @caparsons is this the underlying report? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9
Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior - Nature Communications
Here, using longitudinal survey and Twitter data, the authors examine the relationship between exposure to Russian Internet Research Agency activities on Twitter and voting behavior and attitudes in the 2016 US election.
@Grant_M @caparsons cool, I'll dive into it shortly. There a discussion going on here: https://mstdn.social/@gavinwilde/109659309408140459
It's hard to provide quantitative evidences here. The evidence for a big impact are also quite lacking.
@gvdr @caparsons The disinformation and propaganda out of Russia focused on voter suppression. That is what this report conveniently skips.
@Grant_M @caparsons Russian interference in foreign democracies is orrible and should be stopped. At the same time, I'm extremely skeptical of the actual efficiency of "target advertisment" and would like to see more quantitative evidence of its impact.
@gvdr @caparsons Interestingly, that bogus report sites some very good reference material (excluding #2) Remember, the goal of the Kremlin attack was not to get people to vote for Trump -- it was to stop people from voting at all. In 2015/16 Twitter was HEAVILY left leaning.
@Grant_M @caparsons "that bogus report" meaning the paper in Nature Communication?
@Grant_M @caparsons Ah, well, and do you mind if I ask what exactly in the methodology/data collection is bogus?
(or is it a "bogus = doesn't get to the conclusions I wanted" case?)
@gvdr @caparsons No. It claims Russian propaganda/disinformation had no effect. This is incorrect. A lie.
@Grant_M @caparsons no, it says "little" and it limits itself to Twitter (not all Russian propaganda). It's a scientific paper, it has a methodology, that can be criticized and even rejected. But not based on platitudes.
@gvdr @caparsons I reject the premise that Russians were aiming to convert Clinton voters into Trump voters. The aim was to stop some people from voting at all. In that, they succeeded.