The news / rumours on "Russian trolls" started in earnest when the crisis in Syria evolved and took a step up with the Ukraine crisis. The main thing which I noticed wasn't actual Russian propaganda but rather people being deemed Russian trolls when ever something was posted which wasn't necessarily negative about Russia. — Gooseone

The Kremlin itself has said that it has doubled media spending €630 million last year to €1.2 billion this year. And to give just one example, there's the case of the St Petersburg "troll factory", where a group (of perhaps 300 people) of Internet users helping the Kremlin shape public opinion on social networks.

Now Russia isn't alone in this. For example Israel has used similar tactics, paid people to post favourable views about Israel and attack those which aren't.

If elections start in Germany next year and there's a lot of news pointing to "active measures", is the beneficiary of such measures automatically the wrong vote? — Gooseone

One has to understand that here Russia is quite opportunist. It will support anything that basically erodes the EU ...or NATO. Hence it's not that all supported groups are Putins puppets. Some have closer connections, others not so. And basically Russian policy has hit a nerve as it can use the anti-EU sentiment that exists (which surely isn't just fabricated By Russia) for it's own aims.

For example, when there was the Scottish referendum, Russia was supporting Scottish independence (see for example Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote). And when the Brexit came, Russia was delighted about the break up in the EU.

Now, those seeking in Scotland independence and those favouring Brexit like the UKIP are totally on different sides of the UK side. But here the outcome, a weaker UK or a weaker EU, was the main objective for Russia.

I wasn't trying to negate your allegations per se and I feel it's a good thing to be aware people (Russia in this case) are opportunists (using anti- EU sentiment for their own goals). I was observing that you appear to be framing your observations in a way which makes it appear that such ways of manufacturing consent are wrong by definition and that you're implying (by specifically not mentioning western media outlets being susceptible to the same tendencies) that it's mainly wrong "If 'they' do it".

I think it was in 2006 that I suggested making it possible to sue politicians and newspapers for stating incorrect facts. — Benkei

What you are proposing is a frontal attack on life as we know it! Why, if politicians and newspapers could be sued for stating merely incorrect facts (let alone more devious constructions) the courts would be backlogged into the next century.

Well my point was this...
In theory traditional news media was not biased by design even if it becomes somewhat biased in practice. — m-theory

Are you sure about that?

I don't know a lot about the history of journalism, but it seems to me that "the news" started out as the editor's naturally biased thoughts on the events of the day (18th century). The very few "content producers" (as we call it) felt free to say whatever was on their mind, barring statements that might ignite a riot which could wreck their printing press.

In the 19th century "the news" and "content production" became industrialized, and a lot of people were out scouting up content to fill column inches. Competition between papers was vigorous, and the reading public was wooed with the kind of stories that would keep the coins klinking into the coffers and consequently, keep the owners happy. Again, anything short of a riot or a slander suit, or governmental wrath.

The 19th century segued into the 20th with journalism still being pretty raw. A much larger reading public, competition, and a certain mount of ruling class "taste making" reigned in the excesses, and journalism became a profession. By mid-20th century (and on to the present) we have had the slimy tabloid papers on the sleazy side, and the big daily publishers on the 'taste and dignity' side.

Taste and Dignity, unfortunately, do not rule out bias. It's just that the bias is more disguised, more camouflaged than in the past. The systematic way issues are framed, for instance, can disguise a large bias. For instance, in the 1980s the New York Times would not publish the obituaries of gay men that referenced bonded relationships -- words like 'spouse' or 'partner' were edited out. The bias of the Times was that gay men didn't have deep relationships. (They eventually did an about-face, but not without a minor riot on their doorstep.)

Take population movements: It's an unvarnished fact that people move from place to place, and sometimes a lot of people move at the same time. One newspaper will frame this as a humanitarian challenge; another paper will frame it as a cultural crisis; a third paper will frame it as economic opportunity; a fourth paper will frame it as an invasion. They are all talking about the same thing, and are likely to cite the same data.

They are all biased, and all conceal their bias in the way they frame the story. All of these frames are more and less valid.

The closest we can get to the facts is to recognize and accept another fact, and that is "news purveyors" can not be bias free. I can't, you can't, and neither can the New York Times be bias free.

I was observing that you appear to be framing your observations in a way which makes it appear that such ways of manufacturing consent are wrong by definition and that you're implying (by specifically not mentioning western media outlets being susceptible to the same tendencies) that it's mainly wrong "If 'they' do it". — Gooseone

Actually there are two things here.

a) A domestic media / newspaper having some political tilt, bias or agenda, which shows in editorials, in it's agenda setting etc.

b) A country trying to influence the domestic politics of another country in a subversive manner.

There is a difference.

And if such "active measures" are used by the West, one should call them what they are, covert operations or hostile actions toward another sovereign state. The most obvious one's are those when a administration / regime is in the end toppled.

There are examples of these, perhaps the best and actually admitted operation was the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic, in which the Serbian opposition was helped in organizing an revolution, basically by American political professionals. Now this shouldn't come as a surprise, because before NATO had the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. It should be clear also, that the 2000 revolution (called sometimes the Bulldozer Revolution) wasn't a fabricated event, there was naturally an opposition to Milosevic, but the State Department (not so much the CIA, actually) helped to organize it.

(The US State Department provided for instance spray cans for the Serbian Otpor-movement for graffiti)


Hence the talk of "Color Revolutions".

Just how effective this in the long run can be seen from the fact that present Serbia has close ties Russia and basically is it's ally. So in the long run, such "active measures" didn't create a Western Proxy state of Serbia. But it did what NATO bombing couldn't do.

Let's think of the normal way any country tries to influence another country: they have an embassy and there an ambassador, who obviously wants his country's agenda to be understood and interacts with the host nations leaders. And usually the contacts are made through diplomatic routes. Yes, that an attempt to influence, yet that's what I find to be OK understandable. It's open.

When it's done by intelligence services covertly, it isn't so innocent. And if these kind of operations are done against other major powers, there is the possibility of a serious international crisis.

Okay then, I guess we can agree that we should be very wary of other countries trying to manufacturer consent and be open minded when anything that criticises the goal of NATO intervention in Libya and possible influence in the Ukraine is framed as being "Russian trolls at work".

For clarification, I'm not invested in any particular outcome nor am I trying to make it out as if one side is better / worse then the other, I'm invested in being able to dissect false news, actual truth probably does not even lie in the middle.

I disagree still.
I was not attempting to suggest that traditional media was bias free.
I was pointing out that modern media is decidedly more bias compare to traditional media and that this is by design not as a result of human error.
Modern filtering algorithms are deliberately biased, ideally they are biased in exactly the same way you are, so as to provide you with content that appeals to your own personal tastes.
This simply was not true of traditional media, their target audience were not given individuals, it was a mass audience.


Traditional news media was designed for public consumption.
This means to some extent it had to appeal to a wider audience.
The fact that content was targeting a mass audience meant that it had to be less bias compared to modern media.

This is no longer true in the information age.
The information you are exposed to, to an ever increasing degree, is being custom tailored for your personal tastes.

Another issue is fact checking.
When media outlets compete for a large audience they police themselves to insure that the facts are right.
Online companies do not fact check each others content filters, there is decidedly less self oversight than we see with traditional media.


To me it is a legitimate issue that should be brought to the attention of public.
The public deserves to know that if they get their news from strictly online sources, that news is being curated to suit their tastes based on their surfing habits.

I certainly agree that people who rely on social media's algorithm sifted "news" or "feeds" are trapped in an echo chamber. AT least if one reads newspapers (paper or on-line), one's eye might possibly stray across the page and stumble upon an article that presents unexpected information. My guess is that the majority of people (70-80%?) prefer the "push" approach to content, rather than having to "pull" content one's self. I prefer the pushed information of the NYT to reading wire service content, which requires all pull and no push. News, for me, should be "news". Surprise me!

There are, of course, other ways of filtering. Some people listen only to gospel radio, mostly read inspirational material, spend a lot of time in church, and socialize mostly with church people. They are in a pretty effective echo chamber of their own design.

I'm not quite clear about how social media algorithms function. Do they scan the output of thousands of content producers, and serve up only the material that fits either the completed checklist of preferences, or what matches the pattern of their searches and web travels: the amount of time they spend on various kinds of web sites, the kind of items selected for download, who their friends are, what their record of 'likes' is, and so on?

Personally, I would think that a record of actual internet use would be a better measure of their interests than a checklist, even if the checklist were detailed.

Of course, a lot of what is 'looked at' (porn, for instance) usually isn't news and won't guide content selection directly (it could, indirectly). Shopping online at Macy's or Bloomingdales doesn't tell an algorithm much about news, either, but if someone buys a $10.000 watch, that would indicate something to an alert algorithm, one would think. (Like this person might be interested in the falling prices of luxury watches -- a story I saw in the WSJ today. (Is $10,000 a reduced price in that market?) Maybe that person should be served stories about off-shore tax shelters.

I'm invested in being able to dissect false news, actual truth probably does not even lie in the middle. — Gooseone

That's a good point that I agree with. When someone makes totally false statements or gives fake news, many people still think there is some truth to it. This then actually make disinformation campaigns successfull. Because usually we accept that some news might be a little bit biased, but not utterly fabricated. And a disinformation campaign's goal can also be just to create confusion.

I've sometimes given the example:

A newsources claims that a government of some far away country have unleashed pink elephants loose on it's ethnic minority areas that trample and attack the defenceless people. Now everybody understands that it's not true, but with ignorance about actual situation in the country, similar totally idiotic falsehoods can be taken as being true. Especially if then the government has to come and publicly state: "We haven't unleashed any elephants anywhere". And when the government has to give such statements, the fake news has already impacted the whole discourse.

Well, perhaps they are not pink then.

That is true.
I had not thought of self imposed filter bubbles.

It is not clear exactly what are all the points of data that are collected and used to update these algorithms, partly because companies are constantly refining the algorithms and mostly because it is protected by IP laws.
But things like what pages you visit, how long you stay on a page, what things you click on that page.
Where you are accessing the page from, what type of computer you are using, what type of browser, and of course any purchases you make are standard points that generate records used to filter content to you.

It is especially difficult to avoid google because even if you use a different search engine many web sites still have googles analytics engine integrated into their site.

Just to feed your paranoia a little... It is obvious that they are feeding you stories about false news being so influential to make you so distrustful you do not commit to any position or hold to any truth. Actually, most of the news is true, unfortunately.