Connect with us

Published

on

After years of hyperventilating over the alleged perils to American democracy posed by foreign shitposts, it looks like Moscow’s social media campaign to influence U.S. elections accomplished little, say researchers.

That is, Russian tweets had little effect, unless you count the boost it gave to the careers of pundits bloviating about the supposed vulnerability of our political system. In fact, with this study dropping in the midst of competing revelations about political shenanigans, it appears the government that meddled the most in American politics is the one based in Washington, D.C.

As reported by Reason’s Robby Soave, New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics looked into the impact of Russia’s social media campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election. The results, published in Nature Communications, suggest Vladimir Putin didn’t get much bang for his rubles.

“Taking our analyses together, it would appear unlikely that the Russian foreign influence campaign on Twitter could have had much more than a relatively minor influence on individual-level attitudes and voting behavior,” wrote authors Gregory Eady (University of Copenhagen), Tom Paskhalis (Trinity College, Dublin), Jan Zilinsky (Technical University of Munich), Richard Bonneau, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua A. Tucker (all of New York University). “We did not detect any meaningful relationships between exposure to posts from Russian foreign influence accounts and changes in respondents’ attitudes on the issues, political polarization, or voting behavior.”

Or maybe Putin was happy with the results. There’s always been a hint that the social media campaign was mostly an inexpensive means for Russia’s strongman to demonstrate his country could still tweak America’s tail decades after the collapse of the Soviet empire. The frenzy of high-profile finger-pointing into which it sent U.S. politicians and talking heads certainly met that standard.

“Foreign influence campaigns may also succeed through second-order effects: those effects that are achieved by provoking a domestic reaction to the intervention itself,” the authors note of this point. “Russia’s foreign influence campaign on social media may have had its largest effects by convincing Americans that its campaign was successful.”

Interestingly, this study appears amidst revelations that the U.S. government itself has been doing a lot of meddling in domestic politics. The Twitter Files published by journalists given access to internal documents by new owner Elon Musk, and a lawsuit against the federal government by Louisiana and Missouri, show officials pressuring private firms to suppress disfavored stories, ideas, and voices.

“We present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published,” Michael Shellenberger reported last month of the story suppressed in the lead-up to the 2020 election.

“The federal government colluded with Big tech social media companies to violate Americans’ right to free speech under the First Amendment,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey charged January 9. “Today’s documents display White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty and his team’s efforts to censor opposing viewpoints on major social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.”

That’s not to say that Russia’s government doesn’t want to interfere in American elections. It’s eager to see friendly faces installed by voters here and elsewhere around the world. So is the United States government, for that matter. Meddling in other people’s elections is an old and nasty game.

“Great powers frequently deploy partisan electoral interventions as a major foreign policy tool,” Dov Levin, then of UCLA and now at the University of Hong Kong, wrote in 2016 for the International Studies Quarterly. “For example, the U.S. and the USSR/Russia have intervened in one of every nine competitive national level executive elections between 1946 and 2000.” Levin expanded on the topic in 2020’s Meddling in the Ballot Box.

“I was alarmed in 2016 by how policymakers and commentators frequently described Russian interference in our election as unprecedented,” agreed the Wilson Center’s David Shimer, who wrote Rigged, published in 2020. “Many former CIA officers told me in interviews that they viewed the ’48 operation in Italy as the agency at its best. And in the aftermath of that operation, as the CIA’s chief internal historian put it to me, the agency and the KGB went toe to toe in elections all over the world.”

“Methods ranged from providing funding for their preferred side’s campaign (a tactic employed by the Soviet Union in the 1958 Venezuelan elections) to public threats to cut off foreign aid in the event of victory by the disfavored side (as the United States did during the 2009 Lebanese elections),” noted Levin in his 2016 study.

So now the list of foreign election meddling tactics can be amended with the addition of bogus social media accounts and shitposts. It’s not nice, but it’s nothing new. And, frankly, it would take an especially fragile political system to fall to an onslaught of trolls. Especially when posts supposedly intended to shift opinion are executed with the not-so-deft hand Moscow brings to so many of its dealings.

“The Russian efforts were sometimes crude or off-key, with a trial-and-error feel, and many of the suspect posts were not widely shared,” Scott Shane observed in 2017 for The New York Times.

It’s not so surprising, then, that researchers find Russian tweets had little impact on the 2016 election.

On the other hand, U.S. government officials pressuring private companies to act as end-runs around First Amendment protections for free speech is a bigger deal than such clumsy intervention. They abuse the threat inherent in their official positions to bypass restraints on state power, muzzling challenges to their policies and discussions of news stories that might influence election outcomes in ways they don’t like. Vladimir Putin and his cronies can only dream of so effectively subverting the principles of individual freedom and an open society.

There are certainly malicious actors on the world stage who intend harm to Americans and their institutions. But it’s impressive how often the domestic government officials pointing to alleged perils overseas turn out to be the real threats to our liberty.

Continue Reading

Technology

Meta extends ban on new political ads past Election Day

Published

on

By

Meta extends ban on new political ads past Election Day

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg plans to visit South Korea, scheduling key meetings during the trip, according to a statement by Meta on Wednesday, which did not provide further details. Reportedly, Zuckerberg is anticipated to meet with Samsung Electronics chairman Jay Y. Lee later this month to discuss AI chip supply and other generative AI issues, as per the South Korean newspaper Seoul Economic Daily, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

Alex Wong | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Meta extended its ban on new political ads on Facebook and Instagram past Election Day in the U.S.

The social media giant announced the political ads policy update on Monday, extending its ban on new political ads past Tuesday, the original end date for the restriction period.

Meta did not specify the day it will lift the restriction, saying only that the ad blocking will continue “until later this week.” The company did not say why it extended the political advertising restriction period.

The company announced in August that any political ads that ran at least once before Oct. 29 would still be allowed to run on Meta’s services in the final week before Election Day. Other political ads will not be allowed to run.

Organization with eligible ads will have “limited editing capabilities” while the restriction is still in place, Meta said. Those advertisers will be allowed to make scheduling, budgeting and bidding-related changes to their political ads, Meta said.

Meta enacted the same policy in 2020. The company said the policy is in place because “we recognize there may not be enough time to contest new claims made in ads.”

Google-parent Alphabet announced a similar ad policy update last month, saying it would pause ads relating to U.S. elections from running in the U.S. after the last polls close on Tuesday. Alphabet said it would notify advertisers when it lifts the pause.

Nearly $1 billion has been spent on political ads over the last week, with the bulk of the money spent on down-ballot races throughout the U.S., according to data from advertising analytics firm AdImpact.

Watch: Tech still investing big in AI development despite few breakout products.

Tech still investing big in AI development despite few breakout products

Continue Reading

US

Elon Musk can keep giving away $1m to voters, judge rules – as lawyer admits winners aren’t chosen randomly

Published

on

By

Elon Musk can keep giving away m to voters, judge rules - as lawyer admits winners aren't chosen randomly

Elon Musk can keep giving away $1m to voters in battleground states, a judge has ruled – as a lawyer admitted the winners aren’t chosen randomly.

Musk – a supporter of Republican candidate Donald Trump – launched the giveaways last month via America PAC, his political action committee (PAC).

He has already handed out $16m in the scheme, which is open to registered voters in seven key battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – who sign a petition pledging to support free speech and gun rights.

On Monday, Pennsylvania Judge Angelo Foglietta ruled the giveaways could carry on, rejecting a district attorney’s request that he shut it down because it allegedly violated state election law.

US election latest: Harris team reveals when it expects results

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Elon Musk hands out $1m cheques

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, said it was “a political marketing masquerading as a lottery”, adding “That’s what it is. A grift.”

Judge Foglietta did not explain his ruling on the matter but Chris Gober, a lawyer for America PAC, had argued the winners are not chosen by chance and are instead hand-picked based on who would be the best spokespeople for the group – despite Musk’s assertion that they would be chosen randomly.

More on Donald Trump

Mr Gober said the final two winners before Tuesday’s presidential election will be in Arizona on Monday and Michigan on Tuesday.

He said the recipients “are not chosen by chance”, adding: “We know exactly who will be announced as the recipient today and tomorrow.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Musk: Mark Stone’s deep dive

America PAC director Chris Young said recipients are vetted ahead of time to “feel out their personality, (and) make sure they were someone whose values aligned” with the group.

In closing arguments, Musk’s legal team said it was “core political speech” as anyone taking part had to sign a petition endorsing the US Constitution.

Given there will be no more Pennsylvania winners before the programme ends, Musk’s lawyers said any legal bid to stop it under Pennsylvania law was irrelevant.

Launching the plan in the state on 19 October, Musk said they would be “awarding a million dollars randomly to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election.”

Read more:
The celebrities backing Trump or Harris
What happens if there’s a tie in the US election?
Harris and Trump’s final rallies before vote

The following day, he said in a social media post shown in court that anyone signing the petition had “a daily chance of winning one million dollars!”

Musk did not attend the hearing.

Continue Reading

Sports

Cole decides to stay with Yankees on original deal

Published

on

By

Cole decides to stay with Yankees on original deal

Right-hander Gerrit Cole decided Monday to remain with the New York Yankees on the four-year, $144 million contract he opted out of Saturday, the team confirmed late in the day.

Originally, the only way Cole would remain a Yankee without reaching free agency was if the club voided his opt-out with a one-year, $36 million extension to his contract, making it a five-year, $180 million deal. The Yankees declined to do so, however, but they came to an agreement for Cole to remain in New York anyway, as if he had not triggered the opt-out in the first place.

“It was something at the moment we weren’t necessarily comfortable doing, but we wanted our player and our ace back, and he certainly didn’t want to go either at the same time,” Yankees GM Brian Cashman said at the general managers meetings in Texas on Monday. “And so we had a lot of healthy dialogue about trying to just thread the needle and just keep it in play.”

The two sides originally had until Sunday to decide Cole’s fate, but they extended the deadline to Monday at 5 p.m. ET because the conversations were ongoing. Though the Yankees would love to have Cole finish his career in New York, Cashman indicated there are no current discussions on a potential contract extension, citing the timing of the end of the World Series as having played a part in the saga.

“Was a 48-hour window, very small,” Cashman said. “It feels like he legitimately just got off the mound and we were in our discussions. We were wrestling with it [the decision] and sharing that [with Cole]. And at the same time, there is an opportunity that arose that Gerrit didn’t want to go anywhere either.”

Cashman was asked if the team had won a game of chicken with Cole and his representatives.

“No, I don’t look at it as anything other than more conversations we’re having after the opt-out than probably should have happened before the opt-out,” he answered. “And so I think it’s easier to try to understand and find common ground with each other when you’re having the conversations versus a contractual right you exercise and now the other side has to do things instead.”

In other words, the Yankees didn’t feel comfortable with making a fast decision right after the World Series and were ready to let Cole walk but instead offered to kick the discussions down the road.

Cashman had a layover in Charlotte on the way to San Antonio on Monday afternoon, realizing then that the sides were in a good place.

“It felt like we were going to be in a safe harbor where we were both willing to move forward with the four years that was in play and continue obviously to have conversations,” Cashman said. “But there’s no pressure point with any conversations. We’re always open to talk about future years, but right now we don’t have to because it’s a four-year locked-in commitment, and it’s on to our next focus.”

A six-time All-Star, the 34-year-old Cole fulfilled his boyhood dream of joining the Yankees before the COVID-shortened 2020 season on what was, at the time, the largest contract ever given to a pitcher: nine years, $324 million. He became the workhorse ace New York envisioned, posting a 3.08 ERA in 108 starts over the next four seasons, and peaked in 2023, when he went 15-4 with a 2.63 ERA across 209 innings in 33 starts to win his first Cy Young Award. A repeat performance, however, was doomed from the start.

Cole was shut down in mid-March with nerve irritation and edema in his throwing elbow. He avoided surgery but began the season on the injured list. He made three rehab starts before making his season debut June 19 against the Baltimore Orioles. Initially not built up to his usual pitch count, Cole didn’t record an out in the sixth inning in his first four outings.

But the Yankees’ measured plan for Cole paid dividends. The right-hander ultimately logged at least six innings in eight of his 17 starts, posting a 3.41 ERA across 95 innings. He had his occasional blow-up — he surrendered 11 runs in two starts against the Boston Red Sox and 12 runs to the New York Mets in two outings — but was otherwise stingy, allowing two or fewer runs in 10 of his starts. He delivered his best performance in Oakland, holding the A’s to one run over nine innings Sept. 20.

Cole added another five starts in the postseason, pitching to a 2.17 ERA over 29 innings. He limited the Kansas City Royals to one run in seven innings in the Yankees’ American League Division Series-clinching Game 4 win. The Dodgers mustered just one run in six innings against him in Game 1 of the World Series, although the Yankees lost in extra innings.

His final start of the season in Game 5, however, will haunt the Yankees: After four hitless innings, three Yankees defensive miscues in the fifth — including Cole not covering first base on a routine ground ball to first baseman Anthony Rizzo with two outs — allowed the Dodgers to tie the score with five unearned runs in their eventual 7-6 win.

The Pittsburgh Pirates drafted Cole with the No. 1 pick in the 2011 draft out of UCLA. He made his major league debut in 2013 and made one All-Star team for Pittsburgh. It wasn’t until he was traded to the Houston Astros after the 2017 season that he became a consistent ace, recording two 200-plus-inning seasons with a 2.68 ERA before hitting free agency and signing with the Yankees in December 2019.

“I think he’s happy where he’s at,” Cashman said. “I think he likes our setup. I think he likes playing for who he’s playing for and working for. And I think he likes his teammates, and I think he thinks we have a legitimate chance to win. And sometimes the grass isn’t always greener, and so that goes for us, too. I know we’d prefer not to be trying to look to how we’re going to replace our ace.”

Continue Reading

Trending