A meticulous analysis of online activity during the 2016 campaign makes a powerful case that targeted cyberattacks by hackers and trolls were decisive.
This is a very lengthy review of the book “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know,” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania.
She attempts to answer the question of whether the Russian attack on our elections in 2016 actually affected the outcome in favor of Trump. And while it is impossible to quantify exactly, she makes the case that yes, it is quite decisive from her research that these attacks did in fact change the outcome of the election.
It is an interesting read. There are counter-arguments made as well in the article. I believe it is unquestionable that these unprecedented attacks on our nation in 2016 had an impact. Coupled with a lot of other events and situations that occurred.
Most people never explained that Russian hackers changed a single ballot, though not from lack of trying it seems, but I’d she really is that political neutral and still that much of a dedicated analysit it will be hard to ignore her book
I absolutely agree. Obviously the partisans on both sides will claim either “fake news” or “vindication of an illegitimate process” depending on their proclivity. But for the unbiased perspectives out there, her nonpartisan bona fides will definitely be an assurance in finding her conclusions accurate.
Here’s how you answer that question, by answering another simpler one: why do companies advertise their products?
Now, it can not be shown definitively that they swung any votes, but like advertising, their disinformation campaign did likely form into the thought processes of those who read the disinformation. Just like people who watch/read Infowars, Gateway Pundit, etc.
Exactly. And the even more likely result was not a switched voter from a Clinton to a Trump. Rather, it was a disengagement for a potential Clinton voter to a non-voter in the election, which also favors Trump.
Man, you guys know nothing about what was really going on. There were russian special “election advisors” positioned at every precinct in key swing states in 2016. In early 2015, well before his announcement to run for the presidency, trump began a pipeline funneling russians into America to wreak havoc and cause chaos at every turn. Many thousands of russians were initially approved visas under the guise of work at trump hotels and casinos, but as the primary election season drew closer, each of them had a mission of sabotage to perform at local levels. The stunt was such a success, that trump and company loaded thousands more russians onto cruise ships and had them in place by July of 2016. With 4 months preparation, and some tweaked improvements to their methods, the November election couldn’t come fast enough.
You guys are playing children’s games with the “troll” theory. Just wait until the real story is known.
If you are not here for a thoughtful discussion regarding the OP, and just want to try and derail the thread, I would kindly ask that you start your own thread to discuss your issue. Thank you.
There have been recent reports that russian killer Ivan Drago and his son Viktor are headed to America in order to suppress voting by beating on black men.
"She continued, “I’m not arguing that Russians pulled the voting levers. I’m arguing that they persuaded enough people to either vote a certain way or not vote at all.”
It is the American voters choice to be persuaded, whether by some trolls, Russian or not; or by emails…stolen or not.
Hillary said that people should completely discount any of the Democrats stolen emails. Voters had a choice to do so if they agreed with her.
Did you read the article? Assuming so based off of your post, what is your take on how they framed the questions in the debates based around the stolen emails by Russia and leaked by Wikileaks? I found it interesting how the overall narrative was modified by the behavior surrounding this crime and subsequent leaks. It is interesting to me to see how the overall picture of the debates were structured around this attack by Russia. And ponder how different it may have been without that attack changing all of the different variables that were involved.
The article goes way deeper, and presumably the book will as well, than just focusing on the impact of ads. Like the decision by Radditz and Wallace to ask questions regarding the criminal action of hacking the emails of Podesta, and rather than framing the questions around the reality this was knowledge because of a Russian crime, they framed it around the concept of Clinton potentially being two-faced. And how that could have impacted voter turnout, or lack-thereof.
What a weird strawman to construct and then knock down. No one other than you claimed journalists are not allowed to ask whatever questions they so desire. Nor did anyone other than you claim someone has an issue with 1A.
If you don’t have an interest in discussing a deeper reality that took place as a result of Russia’s unprecedented attack on our election, and what sort of insight we can now gain by reviewing what transpired and how events were shaped by this attack, then why even bother posting here?
