Forget Russia’s Twitter TrollsAmerica’s Censorious Officials Are a Bigger Threat

Published

2 years ago

January 12, 2023

admin

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.

Business

Government considering measure to slash industrial energy prices

Published

40 mins ago

June 19, 2025

admin

Government considering measure to slash industrial energy prices

Ministers are considering a commitment to cut soaring industrial energy prices for British companies to the same level enjoyed by competitors in France and Germany as part of its industrial strategy.

Sky News understands proposals to make energy prices more competitive are at the heart of final discussions between the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury ahead of the publication of its industrial strategy on Monday.

Industrial electricity prices in the UK are the highest in the G7 and 46% above the median for the 32 member states of the International Energy Agency, which account for 75% of global demand.

In 2023, British businesses paid £258 per megawatt-hour for electricity compared to £178 in France and £177 in Germany, according to IEA data. Matching those prices will require a reduction of around 27% at a cost of several billion pounds.

Money blog: Interest rate held – but Bank of England gave ‘small surprise’

Earlier this month, automotive giant Nissan said UK energy prices make its Sunderland plant its most expensive in the world.

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds is understood to be sympathetic to business concerns, and chancellor Rachel Reeves told the CBI’s annual dinner the issue of energy prices “is a question we know we need to answer”.

Extending relief

While around 350 companies in energy-intensive industries, including steel, ceramics and cement, enjoy some relief from prices through the energy supercharger scheme, which refunds 60% of network charges and is expected to rise to 90%, there is currently no support for manufacturers.

Sky News understands ministers are considering introducing a similar scheme to support the 200,000 manufacturing businesses in the UK.

Cutting network costs entirely could save more than 20% from electricity prices.

Explainer: Why are UK industrial electricity prices so high?

The mechanism for delivering support is expected to require consultation before being introduced to ensure only businesses for whom energy is a central cost would benefit. This could be based on the proportion of outgoings spent on energy bills.

It is not clear how the scheme would be funded, but the existing industrial supercharger is paid for by a levy on energy suppliers that is ultimately passed on to customers.

A central demand

Bringing down prices, particularly for electricity, has been the central demand of business and industry groups, with Make UK warning high prices are rendering businesses uncompetitive and risk “deindustrialising” the UK.

The primary driver of high electricity costs in the UK is wholesale gas, which both underpins the grid and sets the price in the market, even in periods when renewables provide the majority of supply.

Why are costs so high?

Wholesale prices account for around 39% of bills, with operating costs and network charges – the cost of using and maintaining the grid – making up another 25%, and VAT 20%.

Business groups, including the manufacturers group Make UK, have called for a reduction in those additional charges, as well as the so-called policy costs that make up the final 16% of bills.

These are made up of levies and charges introduced by successive governments to encourage and underwrite the construction of renewable sources of power.

Make UK estimate that shifting policy costs into general taxation would cost around £3.8bn, but pay for itself over time in increased growth.

Government sources confirmed that energy prices are a central issue that the industrial strategy will address, but said no final policy decisions have been agreed.

The industrial strategy, which is delayed from its scheduled publication earlier this month, will set out the government’s plans to support eight sectors identified as having high-growth potential, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences, defence and creative industries.

Business

Why are UK industrial electricity prices so high – and what can be done about it?

Published

40 mins ago

June 19, 2025

admin

Why are UK industrial electricity prices so high - and what can be done about it?

Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the G7, a cost businesses say makes it impossible to compete internationally and risks “deindustrialising” the UK.

Electricity prices are driven by wholesale fuel prices, particularly natural gas, but include taxes and “policy costs” that business groups, including Make UK and the CBI, want the government to cut.

Sky News understands the issue is a “live discussion” within government as ministers finalise the government’s industrial strategy, due to be published next week.

Money blog: Interest rate held – but Bank of England gave ‘small surprise’

So what are the options, and why are prices so high in the first place?

How much does UK business pay for electricity?

Industrial electricity prices in 2023 were 46% higher than the average of the 32 members of the International Energy Agency, a group that includes EU and G7 nations that, between them, account for 75% of global demand.

UK businesses paid an average of £258 per megawatt-hour, according to IEA data – higher than Italy (£218), France (£178) and Germany (£177), and more than four times the £65 paid on average in the USA.

While wholesale prices have been driven up in the last five years by external factors including post-pandemic demand and the Ukraine war, this is not a blip – UK prices have been consistently above the IEA average for decades.

Why are prices so high?

The main determinant is exposure to wholesale gas markets. Gas underpins the UK grid, reliably filling the gaps renewables and nuclear sources cannot fill. Crucially, gas also sets the price in the electricity market even when it is not the primary source of energy.

The UK market uses a “marginal pricing system”, in which the price is set by the last, and thus most expensive, unit of power required to meet demand at any one time.

That means that while renewable sources, initially offered at a cheaper price, may provide the majority of power in a given period, the price for all sources is set by gas-fired power stations providing the balance of supply.

Industrial electricity bills are lower in markets that are less exposed to gas. In France, gas sets the price less than 10% of the time because its fleet of nuclear power stations underpin supply.

What makes up electricity bills?

The biggest single element of electricity prices is wholesale gas costs, which make up 39% of the bill, according to industrial supplier SEFE.

The next largest element is “network costs”, charges imposed for using, maintaining and expanding the grid, which account for 23%. Operating costs are 2%, with VAT adding a further 20%.

The remaining 16% of electricity bills is made up of “policy costs”, levies and payments introduced over the last two decades to subsidise the construction of renewable power capacity, primarily wind power.

Increasing renewable supply and storage to reduce exposure has been the long-term solution favoured by successive governments. Sir Keir Starmer‘s administration has a target of shifting to a “clean power” grid by 2030 and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a target Kemi Badenoch describes as “impossible”.

Some energy-intensive industries (EII), such as chemicals, steel, and cement, already receive support, with a 60% relief on network charges and a reduction of around 10% from the British Industry Supercharger fund, which the government is considering increasing.

What does business want?

Business groups are calling for these policy costs to be lifted and shifted into general taxation, calculating that a 15% reduction in prices would give them a chance of competing more equitably.

Make UK say cutting policy costs would cut 15% from bills, and is also proposing a “contract for difference” for manufacturers’ electricity, a model borrowed from the renewables market.

Under the plan, the government would guarantee a “strike price” for electricity 10% lower than the wholesale price. When prices are higher, the taxpayer would refund business, and when they are lower, industry would pay back the difference.

Make UK estimate the cost to the exchequer of £3.8bn. They believe it will be cost-neutral courtesy of increased growth. The alternative, they say, is an uncompetitive manufacturing sector doomed to decline.

“We need to see the government remove those costs in the industrial strategy,” says Make UK chief executive Stephen Phipson.

“We believe it will be cost-neutral because of the benefit to the economy of retaining manufacturing in this country. If we don’t see it happen, we will risk deindustrialising the United Kingdom.”

A government spokesperson said: “Through our sprint to clean power, we will get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets – protecting business and household finances with clean, homegrown energy that we control.”

World

I felt I had to go back to help Gaza’s hospitals, says British plastic surgeon

Published

40 mins ago

June 19, 2025

admin

I felt I had to go back to help Gaza's hospitals, says British plastic surgeon

Dr Victoria Rose is a consultant plastic surgeon who worked in Gaza hospitals for two separate periods last year. This is her first-hand story of the war in Gaza.

The word “dire” does not adequately describe the situation in Gaza’s hospitals.

On a daily basis when I was working there, I had a list of at least 10 patients, and 60% of them were under the age of 15.

These were tiny children with life-threatening burns and limbs blown off, often losing significant family members in the attacks and left to cope with their life-changing injuries alone.

I first joined the charity IDEALS, which helps medical professionals during crises, in Gaza in 2019. I returned last year, working with orthopaedic surgeons.

I felt compelled to go back after becoming aware that a plastic surgeon from Gaza who trained with me in London had been inundated with complex trauma cases since the war broke out in October 2023.

Our aim was to deliver essential surgical equipment and assist our colleagues with the increasing trauma workload they faced. But as the war progressed, it became apparent that we had a third objective: to bear witness.

I worked at the European Gaza Hospital in March 2024 and then returned in August of that year for a month, working at Nasser Hospital.

The transformation of the landscape during these two visits was staggering. The streets were unrecognisable, just pile after pile of dust and rubble. Such a scale of destruction could only be justified if every single building in Gaza was part of Hamas’s infrastructure.

In February 2024, we were denied entry by COGAT – part of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) controlling activities in the occupied territories – which, regrettably, has become a standard outcome for 50% of foreign doctors attempting to gain access. However, we managed to regain access in May.

This mission was intended to last four weeks at the European Gaza Hospital. However, due to its bombing on the day we arrived and its subsequent decommissioning by the IDF, we were redirected to Nasser for three and a half weeks.

The population had now been relentlessly displaced, bombed in their tents, deprived of water and sanitation, and ultimately starved. I remember thinking it couldn’t get any worse – and then they cut the internet.

We ploughed on without essential equipment such as painkillers and antibiotics, patching the patients up, knowing that they were likely to be bombed again.

When we left the hospital we went into the red zone – an area of active fighting that needed to be evacuated.

This meant that nothing could enter without the journey being “deconflicted” by the IDF. Minimal journeys have thus far been deconflicted. Patients struggle to gain entry, and staff cannot leave, as equipment continues to be depleted.

Nasser is the only hospital in the south equipped with a CT scanner, a blood bank, ICU capabilities and an oxygen generator.

I work with two orthopaedic surgeons who run the IDEALS charity. They have been travelling to Gaza since 2009.

IDEALS started the lower limb reconstruction programme in 2013, visiting Gaza every other month and bringing four orthopaedic surgeons back to the UK for short periods of training.

In 2021, I arranged for a plastic surgeon from Gaza to come to London to train with me. He was an incredible trainee and returned to Gaza in February 2023 to take up the post of chief of plastic surgery at Shifa Hospital.