It's pretty fascinating to read the Shadow Broker's posts. They have to write something, since they can't just say "I work for Russia and we're reminding America that they're not invulnerable." So they have to come up with all sorts of contrived reasons about why they're doing this, complete with broken english to fool stylometry detection that walks the fine line between being believable and preposterous. Someone spent a lot of work getting it to look so terrible.
As a Russian myself, I can tell you with certainty that there are mistakes in that text that a Russian ESL speaker would never make, and verb tenses are a bit too good for an unskilled speaker. Due to the combination of these two factors, I bet this was written by a native English speaker who thinks he/she knows the mistakes a Russian would make. They're wrong.
Yes she said, "you can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska." (And not "from my house"). Why this was ripe for satire was that it was the response to "What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?" IMO she repeated part of the question as her answer and it didn't go anywhere near the seriousness of the questions before about Ossetia.
Indeed. Most people forget that the response was to "Why do you know about Russia's foreign actions"... 'Because I can see Russia' is effectively what was said.
It really harkens back to much of the Republicans' desire for anti-scientific thoughts, and lack of critical thought. It also explains the overly simplistic thought of "Well, the weather is nice, this climate change must be bullshit".
Don't get me wrong, I think the Democrats have significant problems of their own. For example, they're not able to properly convey scientific thought to the masses, and instead rely on shaming and insulting. That's not exactly a way to engender people to your view.
The BS one hears today (against Russia, etc) are the "WMD"s of 2017.
There's a single superpower the last 2+ decades (Russia is no USSR) and it has a long history of pushing for its "interests" all over the world, starting wars, grabbing resources, overthrowing governments, supporting all kinds of lunatics and dictators.
And covering the whole damage they do with holier than though finger pointing, made up stories, and generally BS they serve a docile and mostly ignorant on anything happening outside their home state, much less worldwide, population. Or, actually, worse than ignorant: mostly informed from mainstream tv news presenting them the "enemy du jour", but with a complete lack of context and history, and with any nuance and details jumbled up in their minds (in a "Go to Austria, see the kangaroos" fashion).
Whether its a Joe Sixpack or a college educated person, in the majority of cases they equally lack context and perspective, and have no real reason to even try to get one, since they have no skin in the game: some other poor suckers will go and fight (e.g. literally poor whites, blacks and latinos going into service) and some remote countries will pay the toll, so no big deal.
I can't say I agree with all of the foreign policy decisions made on my behalf in the last few decades. But Russia reaps what it sows. And it sows corruption much worse than ours.
Also it's remarkably unfair for you to cherry pick our foreign policy misdeeds while leaving out all of the good we've done over that same time frame.
I wish we cultivated a better interest in world news and culture here. Our natural borders play some (small) role in our isolation. But, yes, the population at large also ignores much of the global news.
> Also it's remarkably unfair for you to cherry pick our foreign policy misdeeds while leaving out all of the good we've done over that same time frame.
Considering the US government and it's MSM propaganda machine tell only one side of the story, I'd think you'd be comfortable with someone telling the other side of that story, if it's fairness you're seeking of course.
Who cares who's leaders are worse? Both countries are ruled by people without the population's best interest at heart.
Do not trust the people telling you Russia is behind all of these problems for the US. Even if it's true, it's a fraction of Russians that are guilty, and if you judge the whole population by what they've done Americans are guilty of a whole hell of a lot too.
Russia is no USSR, but Putin is ex-KGB. On one hand I agree with you that it's overdramatised to some extent, and that it's likely that a lot of the claims about Russia are made up. On the other hand, Putin seems like exactly the type who would see intelligence and manipulation as a way for Russia to punch above its weight and is likely to be engaging in it.
The problem with trying to unravel the truth about Russian hacking is that both sides have similar incentives to play up the drama: For the West to paint Russia as a threat plays straight into an agenda of making Russia seem relevant and powerful. Because of that, there's no reason for Putin to try particularly hard to squash allegations whether they're true or false.
>On the other hand, Putin seems like exactly the type who would see intelligence and manipulation as a way for Russia to punch above its weight and is likely to be engaging in it.
Sure, but at the level Russia can afford, and "puppeteering the US president" is a BS claim way above that, tailor-made for a nation spoon-fed with shows like 24 and Homeland and endless claims about how all the world "plots against it" while itself does exactly that globally (and nobody bats an eyelid).
And while Russia/Putin will use such tactics for their country's (and/or his own) immediate interests/survival (e.g. in Crimea, a place with a huge majority of ethnic Russians, or the middle east), they don't have neither the means or the history of meddling and plundering all over the world.
The claims are mostly a way to invent a present-day Bond villain, an easily identifiable target, like it has been played out tons of times in the past. Russia has too many natural resources and wants to control its periphery, something that goes against the general "interests" and plundering intentions of outside players, hence the pressure, combined with the constant post-Cold-War expansion of Nato to suffocate them.
If instead of Putin there was some friendly dolt selling Russia wholesale to foreign corporate interests (instead to national players that the country can somewhat control -- something which is labeled "cronyism"), like e.g. Yeltsin, it would be all love and hugs with EU and the US, even if they did ten times worse in freedom internally. You know, like those lovable Saudis.
While I get your wider point, I find the different types of mistakes that ESL'ers with different mother tongues make absolutely fascinating.
I've noticed, say, that in Poland, where the native tongue lacks articles, people regularly mess up "the" and "a," or miss them altogether. I've never met a French person with the same issue, for obvious reasons.
When I started looking into people's mistakes with tenses in English - dear god, so much about my native tongue that I had no idea about, and yet made particular nationality error combinations really stand out. It's crazy fun.
Edit: and I love my eldest's progress with English. While she's basically a bilingual preschooler, she tends to speak English with polish word order: I like cars red. Her natural instinct is to also use the polish rules for nouns when choosing he/she/it. It's an absolutely fascinating process I feel privileged to observe.
Interestingly, that word order is also valid English, though it has a slightly different meaning than "I like red cars".
Example: "I like [my] soup warm".
"I like soup warm, but you can eat it cold and left over if you want."
"I like having soup warm"
"I like my cookies freshly baked"
"I like men muscular and toned"
"I like my women blonde, so you can go for the brunette"
"I like cars red" doesn't quite work as well but doesn't seem wrong. Add a little context and it seems more normal. "As a buyer of many sports cars, I like my cars red, even despite the speeding tickets I get".
Perhaps a linguist could explain how this phrasing works.
(That said, of course I advocate teaching her to speak fluently and to use that word order only when she intends its subtlety of meaning.)
Ehhhh... not often quite set in stone enough that you can rely on it, especially for spoken language. Emphasis and a whole host of other situations lean towards - but by no means demand - order in the example given.
Another angle I haven't heard is that they are just having a bit of fun for the lulz: They know their adversaries can (fabricate) attribute with or without obfuscation (cyber war signalling style). So they bring it over the top with some cold war 80s action movie dialogue. It serves no other function than to taunt and confuse and hear some American housewives on Twitter go: I dunno, sounds Russian to me!
The full effect seems to be a thread of 200+ comments talking about the language in the release, sentence-for-sentence, and many (un)witting agents pouring over the contents of the files.
Perhaps, besides the fun of imagining someone having to explain to McCain what a "double dutch rudder" is, the language serves a higher purpose of increasing virality and impact.
> It would be very weird for anyone to make assumptions about their identity based on broken english.
They could be haven trying to disguise themselves, maybe fearing a grammatical analysis or somehow exposing some fingerprint in how they construct sentences.
And as throwaway claimed, if you speak both English and Russian (I do), and have heard many others who speak both English and Russian for a many years you start to pick up patterns and understand when someone is speaking with a fake-make-it-sound-Russian style.
Due to the combination of these two factors, I bet this was written by a native English speaker who thinks he/she knows the mistakes a Russian would make.
Or it is Russian and they intentionally formulated this as cartoonesque Russian, so that everyone says "this can't possibly be Russian, it's someone who tries to put the blame on Russia".
The problem is that if this comes from a government power, it is likely that they have the resources to use some professional translators and/or linguists to make it look whatever they want it to look like.
Anything here that is not backed by other data is just pure speculation.
Quite. If this was actually designed by a state actor, they have access to professional linguists who specialise in this sort of stuff. You're not going to figure out who it is unless they want you to, and it certainly won't be obvious enough for a cursory browse to identify provenance.
Why do people keep saying it's Russian or someone faking Russian? Clearly it was written to avoid identification by text analysis or whatever it's called.
I'm also Russian, and I have to concur with this assessment after looking at the text (while noting that I do generally believe that Russian government was actively involved in cyberattacks against US, including, among other things, to affect election results last year). It does sound very much like a native or near-native English speaker trying to fake Russian accent.
Not really. The GP is implying that they are Russian with this
>since they can't just say "I work for Russia and we're reminding America that they're not invulnerable."
But the person who replied is saying how the grammatical obfuscation doesn't look like something that's done by a Russian but by an English speaker who is trying to sound like a Russian with bad English. Because a Russian with bad English wouldn't make those mistakes.
To my ear, this obfuscation sounds Middle Eastern, due to the frequent use of "-ing" in verbs whether it belongs there or not. I know an Iranian guy who does this a lot.
The whole point is to feed it through translation services dozens of times until the meaning remains but the actual word selection is super poor and completely unidentifiable.
It's weird to me that you're trying to push this to blame another group so quickly, especially with an 8 day old account.
Well, there's no Russian first-language bias in that text for sure. Another argument in favor of the opinion that this was written by an American: the author seems to be well versed in the memes of the US political discourse. Someone from outside the US is unlikely to even know or care about Trump's "movement", or who "Bannon" is, or "drain the swamp", or "white privilege" etc. They're also unlikely to abbreviate "New York Times" as "NYT". The telltale signs are all over the text.
That's a terrible analysis, I'm not from the US and know all of the above and would abbreviate NYT. I'm not hugely into US politics but I'm not ignorant of it either. Hell the BBC, Der Spiegel and Le Monde all covered Bannon losing his NSC seat.
> the author seems to be well versed in the memes of the US political discourse
that's not exactly hard for anyone that payed even a little attention during the very controversial US political season in 2016. Same with Brexit. The terminologies and crux issues have been widely debated on the social web. I would say it has actually been very difficult to escape
Right. However, things like "caucus" and "SCOTUS" are really unlikely to be written by a Russian, on any English knowledge level. We do make mistakes, but our mistakes are different. In this text, there are too few common mistakes, and too many strange things.
the parent's point though was that there's a mismatch between the level of idioms used and the broken grammar used (which is, imo, pretty obviously intentionally obfuscated; it's just… not how a non-native speaker would write it, esp russian)
I've observed the whole Brexit thing with great interest, but I don't feel well versed in the vernacular. And for someone well versed, it'd be difficult to know what the person who's not well versed wouldn't know. Which is what we're observing here.
You won't be well versed in the vernacular of any political event unless you follow the news. But that's just as true for native speakers. You seem to imply that people who learn tens of thousands of words to communicate in a foreign language would be unlikely to learn the additional vocabulary of the current events. Especially the big events. Could anyone with a British friend in Twitter never hear of the NHS bus, for example? Unlikely.
Unfortunately, as with any form of communication, the only way to know where something really came from is to find the source, whether an individual or a collaboration. Facts are still being discovered about decisions, choices and actions relating to Benghazi, years ago. Obfuscation of the source is intended to delay. It works. Masking the source behind fingers pointing to cultures is a "cheat", and cheaters do not like to be discovered. Personally, we have been presented with evidence of tools and techniques of Alinsky in the 2016 U. S. election.
Yes, exactly. While those are still somewhat plausible (I am Russian, and I might have occasionally used all of these ironically), it was "POTUS" and "SCOTUS" that made me 99% sure that this text was written by an American (or at least a US insider). You guys love your acronyms.
Yup, I've been living in England for over 20 years and my English language proficiency is well above that of most of the locals, but I still had to look up SCOTUS and POTUS a few years ago (probably when I started reading HN actually). Now that I know them I still would never consider using them in writing (the former is actually reminiscent of something offensive).
I don't own a TV. :) I do watch some movies now and again though, especially when flying long haul but I never had one that mentioned those. Off the top of my head I can only think of 24 as a candidate but I never watched that.
I think it's not a matter of knowing the acronyms but rather using them in your writing. Even though I'm aware of POTUS, I would simply write "The President" or "The US President" - it comes much more natural, from all the times its been used in local media to refer to our own/foreign presidents. Same reasoning for the US Supreme Court.
I honestly don't know why you guys are trying to divine identity based on textual clues like this. It's safe to assume every stylistic and linguistic choice is deliberate.
Are you able to elaborate on how this case is related to the DNC hacks? ShadowBrokers was never accused of being the same as Guccifer2, as far as I understand.
I'm not saying he/she was. But do consider that in one case the most cursory circumstantial evidence is enough to convict, but in this case the same level of "evidence" is not enough to exonerate. Double standard, anyone?
No, as a fellow Russian I am fine to admit that the DNC hacks were probably done by us. When the leak happened, there was a little too much enthusiasm in Russian hacking circles. Guccifer2.0's style was also consistent with Russian writing.
But when the Shadowbrokers leak appeared, the community response was more like "wat."
'doktrin perhaps you have confused this subthread with a different one; it would be understandable since you've seen fit to post on this page sixteen times already. (Bonus points: you've used the phrase "paid shills" twice!) Unless you're willing to admit now that you are the DNC staffer who leaked all their dirty laundry to Wikileaks, you've got to admit that this tawdry hermeneutical argument no longer suffices to prove The Russians Did It.
> perhaps you have confused this subthread with a different one
No, but since you're obviously confused let me explain which thread we're in. The common topic, stretching back to the top comment, is armchair linguistic "analysis" :
>> (throwaway71958) Well, there's no Russian first-language bias in that text for sure. Another argument in favor of the opinion that this was written by an American: the author seems to be well versed in the memes of the US political discourse. Someone from outside the US is unlikely to even know or care about Trump's "movement", or who "Bannon" is, or "drain the swamp", or "white privilege" etc. They're also unlikely to abbreviate "New York Times" as "NYT". The telltale signs are all over the text.
>> (atemerev) Yes, exactly. While those are still somewhat plausible (I am Russian, and I might have occasionally used all of these ironically), it was "POTUS" and "SCOTUS" that made me 99% sure that this text was written by an American (or at least a US insider). You guys love your acronyms.
>> (doktrin) I honestly don't know why you guys are trying to divine identity based on textual clues like this. It's safe to assume every stylistic and linguistic choice is deliberate.
>> (throwaway71958) Sure. But if that's what you really think, then you don't get to assume that the DNC was hacked "by the Russians". Agreed?
>> (doktrin) Are you saying there's some letter written in broken english that's being used as proof of Russian involvement in the DNC hacks?
>> (jessaustin) Now that we know the "tools used" "proof" is worthless because CIA uses those tools too, is there anything else?
>> (doktrin) What does that have to do with my point about inferring identity based on textual clues in this blog post?
Which brings us back to the present - as you can see, it's you and throwaway who are trying to derail the thread at the last minute with red herrings about the DNC hacks. I'm not sure why you feel like it's super relevant here.
> Bonus points: you've used the phrase "paid shills" twice!
Again : you're confused. I used the phrase once (the other "use" you're thinking of was obviously a citation)
That's far from true. Professional propagandists from Russia would definitely know about that stuff because they'd follow the campaign. Other trolls outside USA would see headlines that could give them useful information. I have no idea of nationality of the author but nothing in it precludes them from being Russian. Especially at this level in the game where people might put talent or time into faking things to generate a specific reaction.
I'd be curious as to which particular "anti-mistakes" you had in mind (that you believe a non-native speaker wouldn't be likely to make). I have some hunches (like the over-use of linking verbs, and certain overly-idiomatic colocations), but I'd be curious as to what stands out in your view.
"The peoples" is unlikely. "-ing" after most verbs is unlikely. "the" is unlikely before "Freedom Caucus" and "NSC". There's no "the" in Russian, and ESL speakers often omit it, or put it where it doesn't really belong. The word "caucus" in itself is unlikely: I've never even heard of it before I moved to the US, it's not in common use abroad. "Whose" is unlikely. "To destroying" is very unlikely. "Will be happening" is unlikely ("will happen" is far more likely). "Be remembering" is very unlikely. "Do you be thinking" is very unlikely. And so on.
'freedom caucus' is a proper noun referring to an organization, they wouldn't need to know the meaning in order to use it. also you seem to ignore the possibility of using some machine translation assistance (eg for short phrases or sentences) which could account both for irregularities and correct verb conjugations.
To this day I don't know what the word "caucus" would even correspond to in Russian. And English/Russian language pair is notoriously bad in machine translation systems. We're talking borderline unreadable, in either direction.
> To this day I don't know what the word "caucus" would even correspond to in Russian.
It would vary depending on the meaning in English, too.
The kind of caucus that nominates candidates would be "выборный съезд".
Congressional caucus is actually trickier, just because there's usually no close equivalent in other parliamentary systems (including the Russian one). It's like a political faction, but 1) its platform is not all-encompassing, and 2) its membership is not exclusive (i.e. people can, and normally do, belong to several different caucuses). For that, I don't think there's any good word other than loaning the English word directly.
It's a proper noun that describes an obscure sub-structure of US Congress. Now, quickly, name some sub-structures of the Russian Duma for us, and tell us what Putin thinks about them.
Sure, but I'm betting that a russian backed attempt to sow chaos could hire someone capable of putting together a decent sentence in english. There could be all sorts of reasons for the broken sentence. Sentence structure can be a sort of fingerprint, I would probably run any message I had through google translate a few times until I had something which was still legible, but didn't sound like my writing. And that has the benefit of making it seem like a non-english speaker wrote the post, its all just misdirection.
Amerikanski is used in those languages to indicate ownership (eg. This is an American car) so to someone of slavic speaking origin this would be wrong (they would've said Amerikanci to indicate plural). But even aside from that, this honestly sounds so put on. Even the worst english speakers I know from eastern Europe know that you add an "s" to form plural. We all take English from elementary school and nobody would make that mistake, not to mention that it's a mistake even in a slavic language.
A much more common mistake you will find is not knowing when to use "the" or "a".
Edit: unless it is a Russian pretending to be an American who is pretending to be Russian which, who the hell knows, anything is possible.
I dunno man the whole thing is a mish-mash not resembling anything specific to be honest. Random obfuscation to hide true origin perhaps?
But the correct use of definite and indefinite articles indicates someone with a more than competent knowledge of English (whatever their nationality may be).
This is actually a tell-tale sign that whoever wrote this doesn't speak Russian. Let me explain why.
In English, the noun describing the nationality is also an adjective describing belonging to, or affiliation with, that nationality. E.g. "An American is driving an American car".
In Russian, this is not the case - they are different words, sharing the same root. Some examples (noun - adjective):
US: Amerikanets - Amerikanskiy
EN: Anglichanin - Angliyskiy
DE: Nemets - Nemetskiy
AR: Arab - Arabskiy
CN: Kitaets - Kitayskiy
There's one and only one exception, and that, ironically, is the word for "Russian": "russkiy". It's the same for both the noun and the adjective, and, as you can see by comparing it with the list above, morphologically it looks like an adjective. The historic explanation for that is that it originated from the time of the Varangian conquest of Eastern Slavic lands, when the population was referred as "the people of [belonging to] Rus" - "Russkie lyudi" - where Rus was the name of the Varangian tribe in question.
Anyway, what this means is that no native Russian speaker would use the word "Amerikanskiy" to refer to Americans. It only makes sense as an adjective in "American something". However, the addition of "-s" at the end to indicate plural unambiguously tells us that whoever wrote this, treated it as a noun. Which would make perfect sense for a native English speaker, for whom the two are naturally conflated.
And the most obvious explanation for that is that if you put the word "American" by itself into Google Translate, for example, it can't decide whether it's a noun or an adjective without context, so it has to assume one or the other. And it seems to be assuming adjective by default, so you get "Amerikanskiy" back.
Oh, and by the way, writing at as "Amerikanski", without the final "y", is also something that hints strongly that it's not a native speaker. A native speaker would likely transliterate it letter by letter, starting from Russian "Американский", yielding "Amerikanskiy". However, that final "y" is really short when spoken, which is why native English speakers often miss it entirely when transcribing.
On top of that, Polish uses "-ski" for the same words: "polski", "rosyjski", "angielski", "arabski" etc. In Polish, it's also a very common (and ethymologically related - think "of ...") ending for last names - e.g. Piłsudski. There are a lot more Poles, or at least families with Polish ancestry, in US in particular than there are Russians. As a result, Polish last names are pretty common and well-known, as is their spelling. So, that spelling is often applied to vaguely similarly looking and sounding Russian loanwords and transliterations, which also leads to dropping of that final "-y" in "-skiy".
So, definitely not Russian, and overall slightly more probable to be a native English speaker from US.
That's, of course, assuming that the wording wasn't deliberately mangled to look like fake Russian, in a double misdirection...
Alternatively, they're someone else trying to look as if they're Russian-affiliated when they're not. "I work for Russia" would be unbelievable, so they sidle around trying to look suspiciously Russian without saying so.
I speak 3 languages including Russian. I agree with the throwaway's post that it sounds like someone was trying to write like a Russian but didn't do a very good job.
Count me in -- I bought it / am buying it. Who has an interest in making it look like Russia?
I thought the folks who were acting concerned about the young throwaway accounts were just being paranoid. Until the next sequential throwaway account showed up and piled on. What gives? Is HN influential enough to deserve astroturfing / propaganda from state intelligence services?
It's not so much about "making it look like Russia" as it is about making the current administration look illegitimate. There are literally trillions of dollars at stake, as well as very affluent lifestyles of some very influential people who have been running things for decades. They might end up being replaced by a different group of people, and they don't like that one bit. And they are fighting it tooth and nail. Just goes to show how little power is really vested in the officials we elect (yes, "we", I am a US citizen), and how much of it is wielded by the amorphous Washington DC apparatus that doesn't change no matter who you vote into office. Explicitly going after them, the way Trump promised in the final months of his campaign, is a suicide mission, if he actually decides to follow through on the threat. But I don't think he actually has the power or indeed the smarts to "drain the swamp" in any kind of meaningful way. This draining is long overdue, but there's no way to accomplish this without some world class statesmanship, and without having the intelligence community on your side, and Trump is at odds with both of those things.
And here's some Russian perspective on "draining the swamp": that's actually one thing Putin did when he came to power. Under Yeltsin, the government was basically run by oligarchs, and they could do whatever the hell they wanted. Putin and Russia's security/intelligence community that installed him laid down the ground rules, and made it clear that from there on out orders would be coming down from the Kremlin, not the other way around. One oligarch rebelled (Khodorkovsky) and was put in prison for a decade. Which, by the way, was entirely deserved. Most Russians were disappointed that other oligarchs didn't follow.
The issue with "draining the swamp" is that this creates voids that other people fill. Which they did under Putin. So even though oligarchs are pretty obedient now, there's a much stronger swamp sub-structure of Putin's pals under the covers which is darn near impossible to remove until he dies, and they're all under his control.
So armed with this perspective, I like two features of the US political system that many other Americans (native and naturalized) intensely dislike: the divided congress and the constant Mexican standoff between the executive and the legislative branch. If those guys could agree on anything, that's when we'd really be in trouble. Case in point is once again Russia, where the executive branch can request whatever laws it wants and be 100% sure they'll pass the Duma. The result is predictable: harebrained laws protecting the incumbent regime.
I think that any agency with the capability to break into the NSA has also the capability to hire a proofreader. That is, any mistakes left in the documents are there intentionally.
We'll be very lucky if in 20 years, the world is still so free and functional as it is now... and I'm not trying to talk up the state of the world today.
It's weird, though. Sure, it could be some kind of tit-for-tat thing, but I wonder more about 3rd party 'allies' in the middle east who have more to gain by pitting the US against Russia.
Then again, I'm sure that there are enough people and intelligence services in play to make everything confusing.
It's the popular thing to assume these days. It's also very insulting to Russian people in my opinion. But I guess it's ok to be prejudice towards some group of people but not others.
"It's the popular thing to assume these days. It's also very insulting to Russian people in my opinion. But I guess it's ok to be prejudice towards some group of people but not others."
Is that not the comment you were calling correct?
That's what "the person [you] replied to" was talking about, that use of the word prejudice.
This is a discussion about the Russian government, it doesn't really have much to do with Russian people in general.
That is what the person I replied to actually said, and the comment I was clearly referring to; the point being of course, that a discussion of the Russian government has no more to do with the Russian people than the Russian government does.
1. When you made https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14069152 you may have thought it "clearly" referred to the sentence by burkaman, but multiple people thought you were refuting burkaman and referring to snowpanda's comment.
2. Even though you were referring to burkaman's comment, he was directly talking about the sentence that used the word prejudice, and arguing that it was not prejudice. Your claim in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14069723 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14071992 that burkaman was not saying anything about prejudice is untrue. He was directly refuting a claim of prejudice.
The US does legitimately have an imperfect human rights track record, and most Americans who follow the news would agree (while at the same time being aware of China's own hypocrisy in this matter)
Likewise, Russia has a well documented history of sponsoring online propaganda campaigns, and most people who aren't delusional or paid shills would agree.
Two negative things about two different countries can in fact both be based in truth. Weird.
paradite is saying it's not well documented. It's poorly documented by people highly incentivised to lie.
But hey, if you already wrote off anyone who disagrees as "delusional or paid shills" then you're too far gone to reason with. Literally nothing anybody ever says can make you think twice.
> if you already wrote off anyone who disagrees as "delusional or paid shills" then you're too far gone to reason with. Literally nothing anybody ever says can make you think twice.
Not true, but it would definitely take more than that hand-wavy uncertainty yarn you're trying to spin
Both the NY Times and the Guardian seem to hate Russia and all things Russian. I constantly read things in those publications that are ludicrously biased or simply wrong. They don't count as credible sources to me anymore.
And as was already pointed out, you stated that "Russia sponsors" but even the first article states that the alleged project is the work of one guy who apparently has money to burn - not the government.
A significant percentage of younger (as well as non-younger for that matter) people have practically no exposure to mainstream media, so naturally one should expect propaganda (from the various players) will be brought to online forums of all kinds.
Well documented analysis of a corpus of comments on some Latvian sites, yes. Anything in 100+ pages serving as a proof of Kremlin connections with the "hybrid trolls" (gotta love the newspeak)? Not so much. I don't know whether Russians are xenophobic aggressive bastards or knights in shining armor exposing the wrongdoings of others, it's just that claims along the lines like "Russia uses online trolling" seem exaggerated.
Russian here: Russia very definitely does use online trolling domestically (same as the US I guess). They also use paid "pro-government" rally attendees. That's very well documented, including direct video evidence on Youtube.
I very much doubt they're competent enough to pull something like this convincingly here in the US and avoid early detection and counter-intelligence response. Thus far no evidence whatsoever was presented that any of this was Russian, let alone state sponsored. That's either some truly elite level GRU work, to the standard we have not ever seen before, or there is, in fact, no "paid Russian trolls" on The_Donald. My opinion: there's no way in hell they could pull this off without getting noticed _well before_ the anointed Democratic candidate lost the election.
> They also use paid "pro-government" rally attendees.
Christ, even the Canadian government does this, and we're about as unsophisticated as it gets.
The naivete of people getting their panties in a bunch over the revelation that The Evil Russians participate in hacking and propaganda, how can you be so unaware of how the world works?
> claims along the lines like "Russia uses online trolling" seem exaggerated.
What?
gamergate, /pol, /b, alt-right, the_donald, antifa use online trolling. In context, saying a state actor uses online trolling is an extremely conservative claim. I'm sure there's online trolling in favor of and sponsored by US, Chinese and Macedonian interests (to name a few) too - but Russia's actions are much better documented.
Alacritous state actors more nimble at trolling than 4chan? You decide, I don't care. My problem is that US, Chinese, Russian and Macedonian sponsorships by state actors are equally unproved - if you read into "Trolls from Olgino" reports carefully. US's sponsorship is objectively less probable: English being lingua franca hampers American wannabe "hybrid trolls" [0].
> US's sponsorship is objectively less probable: English being lingua franca hampers American wannabe "hybrid trolls"
This is an interesting observation, but I think you either underestimate American resources, or overestimate the logistics of online influence manipulation campaigns.
For illustration : there are about 1m fluent Russian speakers in the US, and about 4m fluent English speakers in Russia. Sure, it's a bigger talent pool : but both countries could rope in bilingual cyber propagandists by the thousands if they felt so inclined.
Trying to figure out who they are by analyzing the content of these posts is like trying to figure out if a child is lying by asking them repeatedly. Other sources of evidence are necessary.
Anyway, while their nationality isn't obvious, their childishness is. I think that's the only detail that can really be gleaned from the text itself.
After reading the analysis, I think the author focused too much on "native speaker". It seems entirely plausible to me that the text was written by a fluent non-native English speaker, who was trying to make the post look like the more common broken English proclamations from Russian hacking groups for whatever reason(blending in and throwing off investigations maybe).
