Some Numbers

[Zam-Zam]

Or, as they say, facts are facts:

Rosenstein noted that the Russians had posted 176,000 tweets in ten weeks, and that 50,258 accounts had been created and tweeted a million times. The tweets presumably were slanted with anti-Hillary bias. The "interference" began during the nomination season, and the Russians, according to Rosenstein (the reader will please excuse my skepticism), preferred Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. To put this tweet threat in perspective, the reader should know that there are 500 million tweets on average generated every day on Twitter. If the total number of Russian tweets were concentrated on one day, that would still come to only 0.00352% of all the tweets on that day. If it were one million tweets over a five-month period, that would come to 0.0000235% of all tweets over that period. What an impact those tweets must have had!

Rosenstein also informed us that the massive Russian interference generated 129 real-world events that drew 340,000 Facebook users. If we look at the number of mobile active Facebook users for December 2016, we see that there were 1.74 billion. Thus, the Russians commandeered 0.000195402% of the Facebook users for that one month. Again, we can see how incredibly destructive such a program must have been. The figures are so ludicrous that one can only wonder why the Russians ever believed that they could have a significant impact. And, looking at the stats, we must be drawn to the conclusion that the Democrats have not only been making a mountain out of a mole hill, but been making a veritable Mt. Everest out of an anthill.


Complete text: https://www.americanthinker.com/art...estigation_offers_a_ludicrous_indictment.html


This collusion theory has now become officially comical........

 

[ObamacareForever]

The total number of tweets doesn't tell how influential they were.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The total number of tweets doesn't tell how influential they were.

Pray tell, what does?

 

[ObamacareForever]

Pray tell, what does?

http://www.adweek.com/digital/5-tools-to-measure-your-twitter-influence/

The Klout score for the Internet Research Agency isn't easy to find. Probably because nobody's got a complete and accurate list of their accounts.

 

[Zam-Zam]

http://www.adweek.com/digital/5-tools-to-measure-your-twitter-influence/

The Klout score for the Internet Research Agency isn't easy to find. Probably because nobody's got a complete and accurate list of their accounts.

That really doesn't tell us anything, does it?

There seems to be no evidence suggesting this had any impact at all. If someone has something that does, I've yet to see it.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That really doesn't tell us anything, does it?

There seems to be no evidence suggesting this had any impact at all. If someone has something that does, I've yet to see it.

The russians goal? diminish trust in American institutions
Isn't it clear as day they are succeeding. Look at the posts around here and tell me there isn't diminishing trust in american institutions.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The russians goal? diminish trust in American institutions
Isn't it clear as day they are succeeding. Look at the posts around here and tell me there isn't diminishing trust in american institutions.

If the issue is whether or the Russians determined the outcome of the election there appears to be no tangible evidence that they did.

As far as trusting our institutions, I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing - May it ever be so.

 

[ObamacareForever]

The whole point of doing the social media campaign is to prevent a direct line from being drawn. The IRA created memes, which go viral. gullible Republicans will generate memes from other memes. Its like advertising. No one admits advertising was the reason they buy anything. But advertising clearly has an influence over consumers.
Here is some Russian propaganda which looks a lot like the the pro-Trump memes we see around here:
http://skepticreview.com/2018/01/20...research-agency-linked-accounts-russian-bots/

 

[Zam-Zam]

The whole point of doing the social media campaign is to prevent a direct line from being drawn. The IRA created memes, which go viral. gullible Republicans will generate memes from other memes. Its like advertising. No one admits advertising was the reason they buy anything. But advertising clearly has an influence over consumers.
Here is some Russian propaganda which looks a lot like the the pro-Trump memes we see around here:
http://skepticreview.com/2018/01/20...research-agency-linked-accounts-russian-bots/

And then there's this:

A check of their November 12 coverage showed both CNN and MSNBC gave enthusiastic coverage to the Russian-organized anti-Trump rally that day, with live reports every hour.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-enthusiastic-coverage-russian-sponsored-anti

Does that prove Russia influenced the election?

No.

None of it does.

Simply saying it over and over again isn't evidence. And that's important.

 

[Arkady]

Or, as they say, facts are facts:

Rosenstein noted that the Russians had posted 176,000 tweets in ten weeks, and that 50,258 accounts had been created and tweeted a million times. The tweets presumably were slanted with anti-Hillary bias. The "interference" began during the nomination season, and the Russians, according to Rosenstein (the reader will please excuse my skepticism), preferred Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. To put this tweet threat in perspective, the reader should know that there are 500 million tweets on average generated every day on Twitter. If the total number of Russian tweets were concentrated on one day, that would still come to only 0.00352% of all the tweets on that day. If it were one million tweets over a five-month period, that would come to 0.0000235% of all tweets over that period. What an impact those tweets must have had!

Rosenstein also informed us that the massive Russian interference generated 129 real-world events that drew 340,000 Facebook users. If we look at the number of mobile active Facebook users for December 2016, we see that there were 1.74 billion. Thus, the Russians commandeered 0.000195402% of the Facebook users for that one month. Again, we can see how incredibly destructive such a program must have been. The figures are so ludicrous that one can only wonder why the Russians ever believed that they could have a significant impact. And, looking at the stats, we must be drawn to the conclusion that the Democrats have not only been making a mountain out of a mole hill, but been making a veritable Mt. Everest out of an anthill.


Complete text: https://www.americanthinker.com/art...estigation_offers_a_ludicrous_indictment.html


This collusion theory has now become officially comical........

"American Thinker" should, in the interest of truth-in-advertising, rebrand itself "The Unthinking American." The idea of comparing the Russian tweets to the overall number of tweets about anything on the planet, is so obviously ridiculous that you have to wonder who the hell E. Jeffrey Ludwig is hoping to convince. With Twitter being a global medium used for everything from sharing pictures of one's pets to gossiping about the latest movies, the vast majority of tweets are not remotely political, much less interested in US politics, much less specifically interested in the presidential election. The same with Facebook posts. The relevant metric, obviously, isn't how the Russian trolls' contributions compared to all communications on such forums, but rather how they compared to the volume of communications regarding one narrow topic they were seeking to influence: the US presidential election. For example, what percentage of Clinton-bashing tweets, during the campaign, either came from or parroted Russian sock puppets?

Obviously, the Russians thought this was worth spending money on. Maintaining over 50,000 accounts (just the ones we managed to detect) that tweeted a million times, isn't free. That costs money. Why did they bother to spend that money? They did it because they expected to be able to influence events.... because, unlike the kind of person who reads "The Unthinking American," they didn't think of those contributions in the context of all communications on those forums, but rather in the relevant context. No doubt they expected to be a small minority of all communications on the topic, but they probably figured their snow job would be big enough potentially to set off an avalanche.

Ever heard of "pump and dump." It's a strategy used (illegally) to make money in the stock market. The idea is you buy some stock of a small death's-doorstep company, where shares can be had for pennies. Then you hype the hell out of it, with targeted communications to the kinds of get-rich-quick marks willing to buy a stock based on nothing but overblown rumors. Then, after the stock price bounces a few pennies, with those rubes rushing in, you sell it, having doubled your money.

Now, if the SEC were composed of the kinds of Unthinking Americans who fall for Ludwig's propaganda, they'd dismiss the whole idea of a pump-and-dump securities fraud. After all, the number of communications involved in such a scheme would be infinitesimal relative to all communications on Facebook or Twitter, or even just all communications about publicly traded corporations. So using the "reasoning" of someone like Ludwig, they'd conclude "looking at the stats, we must be drawn to the conclusion that treating pump-and-dump as a problem is not only been making a mountain out of a mole hill, but making a veritable Mt. Everest out of an anthill."

Seriously -- who is supposed to fall for this propaganda?

 

[marvin martian]

"American Thinker" should, in the interest of truth-in-advertising, rebrand itself "The Unthinking American." The idea of comparing the Russian tweets to the overall number of tweets about anything on the planet, is so obviously ridiculous that you have to wonder who the hell E. Jeffrey Ludwig is hoping to convince. With Twitter being a global medium used for everything from sharing pictures of one's pets to gossiping about the latest movies, the vast majority of tweets are not remotely political, much less interested in US politics, much less specifically interested in the presidential election. The same with Facebook posts. The relevant metric, obviously, isn't how the Russian trolls' contributions compared to all communications on such forums, but rather how they compared to the volume of communications regarding one narrow topic they were seeking to influence: the US presidential election. For example, what percentage of Clinton-bashing tweets, during the campaign, either came from or parroted Russian sock puppets?

Obviously, the Russians thought this was worth spending money on. Maintaining over 50,000 accounts (just the ones we managed to detect) that tweeted a million times, isn't free. That costs money. Why did they bother to spend that money? They did it because they expected to be able to influence events.... because, unlike the kind of person who reads "The Unthinking American," they didn't think of those contributions in the context of all communications on those forums, but rather in the relevant context. No doubt they expected to be a small minority of all communications on the topic, but they probably figured their snow job would be big enough potentially to set off an avalanche.

Ever heard of "pump and dump." It's a strategy used (illegally) to make money in the stock market. The idea is you buy some stock of a small death's-doorstep company, where shares can be had for pennies. Then you hype the hell out of it, with targeted communications to the kinds of get-rich-quick marks willing to buy a stock based on nothing but overblown rumors. Then, after the stock price bounces a few pennies, with those rubes rushing in, you sell it, having doubled your money.

Now, if the SEC were composed of the kinds of Unthinking Americans who fall for Ludwig's propaganda, they'd dismiss the whole idea of a pump-and-dump securities fraud. After all, the number of communications involved in such a scheme would be infinitesimal relative to all communications on Facebook or Twitter, or even just all communications about publicly traded corporations. So using the "reasoning" of someone like Ludwig, they'd conclude "looking at the stats, we must be drawn to the conclusion that treating pump-and-dump as a problem is not only been making a mountain out of a mole hill, but making a veritable Mt. Everest out of an anthill."

Seriously -- who is supposed to fall for this propaganda?

Funny you mention "pump and dump". You tried something similar right after the election when you tried to get people to sell out to avoid the inevitable "massive stock devaluation", while you yourself stayed in, knowing it was all a lie.