Maj Gen PK Mallick, VSM (Retd)
Over the past several years, the Russian Federation has engaged in an unprecedented effort to attempt to influence American politics. A key component of that overall effort has been focused on social media, especially widely used platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter. By using social media tools to manipulate audiences, Russia has been able to support its policy priorities and create divisions by disseminating information which weakens its perceived adversaries.
Russians use social media more subtly to do something far more dangerous – destroy US democracy from the inside out. With features like account anonymity, unlimited audience access, low cost technology tools, plausible deniability – social media provides Russia an unprecedented opportunity to execute their arts of manipulation and subversion known as Active Measures. Russia has conducted the most successful influence operation to date by infiltrating, steering and now coordinating like-minded audiences across the Western world to subvert democratic governance. The rapid spread of Russian disinformation enflames electoral divisions and employs indigenous American audiences to support the Kremlin’s foreign policy of breaking all unions and alliances that challenge their rise.
Each social media company has uncovered some piece of Russia’s social media influence campaign but no one company alone can fully comprehend the extent of Russian operations. As they conduct investigations into their data, they’ll each detect only those accounts where the Kremlin failed to hide its hand, seeing only the tip of the iceberg floating above the social media sea upon which they float. Within the Kremlin’s playbook, each social media platform serves a function, a role in an interlocking social media ecosystem where Russia infiltrates, engages, influences and manipulates targeted American audiences. Russia’s Active Measures in social media and those nefarious dark campaigns emerging in the future will need five complementary social media functions to conduct effective full spectrum social media influence campaigns: reconnaissance, hosting, placement, propagation, and saturation.
Reach of Russian Social Media Influence
Twitter
As of October 14, 2017, Twitter has provided the names of 201 Twitter profiles that have been linked to Russian influence operations during the 2016 presidential election to the US Senate.
Prior to this, Twitter had informed Congress that it had removed roughly 200 accounts that it believed were part of Russian influence operations in the United States.
These accounts were involved with tweeting regarding divisive political topics.
According to Twitter, Kremlin-controlled media outlet RT recently spent $274,100 on promoting over 1,800 tweets targeting the US market.
These accounts were involved with tweeting regarding divisive political topics.
According to Twitter, Kremlin-controlled media outlet RT recently spent $274,100 on promoting over 1,800 tweets targeting the US market.
A Russian-controlled Twitter account was uncovered in October pretending to be the official Twitter account of the Tennessee branch of the Republican Party.
The account tweeted links at prominent Republican politicians, celebrities, and other influencers to promote its content.
Several prominent figures evidently retweeted content from the false account.
The legitimate Tennessee Republican Party had complained to Twitter about the account as early as September of 2016, with no action taken.
Facebook
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced that Facebook will be turning over to Congress the contents of 3,000 Russian purchased ads that ran during the 2016 presidential election.
The ads focused on divisive political issues and ran between June 2015 and May 2017.
The ads cost around $100,000 in total and were reportedly purchased by a Kremlin-directed
“troll factory” known as the Internet Research Agency.
Facebook also shut down nearly 500 fake accounts that it stated were linked to the Russian ads.
These accounts had also apparently been created by the Internet Research Agency.
One Russian-backed, politically divisive Facebook page known as “Being Patriotic” had been interacted with around 4.4 million times before being shut down.
Facebook estimates that 10 million people viewed advertisements bought by Russian groups.
There may still be more Russian financed ads active on Facebook that are undiscovered.
Google
A review by investigators at Google has also found evidence of Russian interference in its network through advertising and fake accounts.
Google has found $4,700 worth of ads linked to the Kremlin.
It is also investigating another $53,000 worth of funding originating in Russia to determine if it is legitimate advertising or part of political influence operations.
The ads in question have been distributed across multiple Google platforms.
These include YouTube, Gmail, and its flagship Google search engine.
While Russian in origin, the entity behind the Google ads does not appear to be the same organization as the Internet Research Agency.
Microsoft
Microsoft has stated on October 9, 2017 that it is examining whether Russians purchased 2016 election ads on any of its platforms or products.
Microsoft’s stated focus was primarily on its Bing search engine.
Sources of Russian Social Media Influence
Internet Research Agency
The St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency is one of multiple “troll factories” operated out of Russia as part of influence operations in the US and the West on multiple platforms.
Russia-based RBC Information Systems estimates that the organization has spent around $2.3 million on its US operations over the past two years. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussing Facebook steps to limit election interference.
Some 90 Russian employees were assigned to the organization’s US operations during the height of its 2016 “trolling campaign.”
The responsibility of this staff was to produce content purposefully designed to aggravate tensions across the political spectrum in the United States.
It is estimated that the organization still has around 50 employees working its US desk.
The organization also paid 100 US activists to organize some 40 rallies and protests.
The event organizers were apparently unaware of the foreign source of their funding.
The organization has also been connected to sponsoring and funding smaller gatherings and events on both sides of the political spectrum.
It is suspected of having funded and promoted a group offering self-defense and martial arts classes geared towards African Americans.
The goal of the operation was apparently to make the group appear to be linked to the Black Lives Matter movement, and in turn to try to promote hostility and fear.
These organizers were also unaware of the Russian origin of their funding and guidance.
The organization made use of American internet service providers in its US operations.
An American based ISP—Greenfloid LLC—has been used to host several websites linked to Russian social media influence operations in the United States.
On several of these websites Russians pretended to be African-American activists and used the websites to push Kremlin-approved, disruptive narratives.
Greenfloid appears to be the subsidiary of a larger company based out of the city of Kharkiv, in Eastern Ukraine, known by the acronym “ITL.”
ITL has reportedly been popular with Russian criminals and hackers for its “no questions asked” business practices on hosting servers and websites.
The company previously hosted a website that unmasked Russian opposition bloggers, as well as a pro-Russian website that covered the Ukrainian conflict.
RT
RT—formerly “Russia Today”—is a 24-hour cable and satellite news network that is funded by the Russian government and directed at an international audience.
RT was rebranded from “Russia Today” in order to downplay its Russian connections.
Its leadership and staff are directly and closely tied to the Kremlin.
Social media has become the primary focus of RT, and it has gone to great lengths to advertise and build up its social media presence.
Focusing on social media news content allows RT to avoid government regulations placed on traditional broadcasters and TV networks.
Social media enables RT to put out content that would otherwise be prohibited on broadcast airwaves.
Being a cable/satellite station also gives RT greater broadcast leeway.
RT’s social media following at the time of this sheet’s publication is:
Around 2.65 million followers on Twitter.
Over 4.5 million followers on Facebook.
Over 2.2 million subscribers on YouTube.
13 YouTube videos with more than 10 million views. o It is unclear how much of this following is due to bots or fake accounts.
Sputnik
Sputnik is an online propaganda outlet and satellite radio station disguised as a news outlet. Like RT, it is funded by the Russian government and geared towards an international audience.
Sputnik uses many of the same tactics and techniques as RT and is closely linked to it.
Sputnik’s social media following at the time of this sheet’s publication is:
Around 200,000 followers on Twitter.
Over 1.1 million followers on Facebook.
Over 20,000 subscribers on YouTube.
As with RT, it is unclear how many of these are genuine followers.
Third Party Influence Networks
The German Marshall Fund’s Hamilton 68 project currently tracks activity from 600 Twitter accounts that have been linked to Russian influence operations.
The primary focus of the study is on Russian “influence networks” that work to amplify third party content that supports Russia and its goals.
These networks are made up of several different types of members:
Overtly pro-Russian users who seek to support the Russian government.
Users who are covertly supporting Russian influence operations.
Automated “bot” users that respond to amplify messaging.
Users who have been influenced by the prior groups into amplifying influence.
Many users who become part of Russian influence networks may not realize that is the case.
The content amplified by the networks may not necessarily be “pro-Russian.”
It may serve to attack and discredit individuals and entities that oppose Russian goals.
The influence networks will use popular hashtags and topics unrelated to Russian objectives to draw in more followers and amplify their reach.
Addressing the Threat
Legislative Branch
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate that would require major social media platforms to disclose the identities of those purchasing political ads on their websites.
Executive Branch
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has ordered the parent company of RT to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Private Industry
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently announced the following responses to Russian activity:
250 employees will be assigned to ensuring political ad transparency and integrity.
Facebook will be working more closely with officials and other companies to spot suspicious ad activity on their platforms.
Facebook will hire 1,000 new staff to review ads running on the website.
New rules have been added to the Facebook ad-buying process, requiring advertisers to prove that they are genuine, and proving more transparency. A pilot program is set to roll out in Canada.
On October 26, 2017 Twitter announced that it would be immediately removing all advertisements by RT and Sputnik on its platform and banning further advertisements by those organizations.
Twitter came to this decision based on its own internal investigation of events during the 2016 election and the US Intelligence Community’s report on the election.
Twitter has also announced that it will be donating the roughly $2 million it is projected to have earned from RT and Sputnik’s advertising revenue since 2011.
The donation will go “to support external research into the use of Twitter in civic engagement and elections, including use of malicious automation and misinformation, with an initial focus on elections and automation.”
This will include the $274,100 that is specifically from the 2016 election cycle.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has condemned Twitter’s actions as an aggressive violation of international norms.
A Foreign Ministry spokesperson has suggested Twitter’s actions are a result of US government pressure and that “retaliatory measures will naturally follow” the decision.
There was a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Hearing on “Extremist Content and Russian Information Online: Working with Tech to Find Solutions” October 31, 2017. The technology giants Facebook, Google and Twitter went before Senate judiciary committee to explain how and why Russian operatives were given free rein to tamper with 2016 US election. They were grilled by Congress over Russian meddling – as it happened. This was followed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on 01 November 2017.
The statements and the hearings are all available in open domain. How one wishes people responsible in India are grilled by a Parliamentary body details of which are subsequently made available in you tube! One need not worry about the capability of our legislatures. If need be they can hire experts from outside!
Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch, Twitter General Counsel Sean Edgett, and Google's head of information security and law enforcement Richard Salgado testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. The hearing was supposed to be about "working with tech to find solutions" to extremist content and the spread of Russian disinformation online. But after more than two hours of questioning, both the executives and their senator inquisitors were long on concerns and short on solutions. The hearing revealed new and startling insight into the ways in which Russians pitted Americans against each other, and reinforced the notion that social-media ads are only a portion of the threat from foreign actors. Senators also forced the tech execs to explain how they police content on their platforms in different parts of the world.
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee accused the three tech giants of creating platforms that allowed cyberwarfare, and some added that their business models allowed Russia to create discord in our country. “I must say, I don’t think you get it. You’re general counsels, you defend your company. What we’re talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we’re talking about is the beginning of cyber warfare,” Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein said during the hearing. “We are not going to go away, gentlemen. And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers. And that just won’t do.”
“Russians have been conducting information warfare for decades,” Democratic Senator Mark Warner said. “But what is new is the advent of social-media tools with the power to magnify propaganda and fake news on a scale that was unimaginable back in the days of the Berlin Wall. Today’s tools seem almost purpose-built for Russian disinformation techniques.” “Many of us on this committee have been raising these issues since the beginning of this year,” Warner said. “Our claims were frankly blown off by the leadership of your companies.”
Republican Senator Richard Burr showed how fake accounts created real-life conflict. According to Wired, a Russian propaganda group called the Internet Research Agency started a clash outside the Islamic Center in Houston after using two fake Facebook pages to draw in warring groups to one location at a specified time. While it was argued that there is no proof that Russia was able to influence the election, Burr used this instance to prove that online troublemaking can create actual problems.
Facebook, Google, and Twitter said that they do not have conclusive data yet on Russia’s actions, and Wired said that they had almost two years to complete this research. Facebook, Google (which owns YouTube), and Twitter said that they had removed fake accounts once they realized that they were fake or spamming people. Google said that it did not remove content from RT, a Russian television station, because it had not violated its terms of service.
In September, Facebook acknowledged that it had discovered 3,000 ads from 470 accounts connected to Internet Research Agency. It's since revealed that those accounts collectively created 80,000 pieces of content that may have been shared, both organically and through ads, with 126 million people. It shared that information with Twitter and Google. Now Twitter says it has identified 2,752 accounts linked to Internet Research Agency, while Google says it has identified 18 YouTube channels connected to the group.
The companies have been slow to investigate and respond to Russian meddling, which started in 2015, more than two years ago. "Many of us on this committee have been raising these issues since the beginning of this year," Warner said. "Our claims were frankly blown off by the leadership of your companies."
Federal law prohibits foreign bodies from interfering in USA elections and Republican Senator Marco Rubio asked why these tech platforms did not stop fake accounts from spreading misinformation that influenced the campaigns. The Senate Intelligence Committee said that Russians were able to target ads to voters in an attempt to sway their opinions, and the tech companies said they had no evidence of voter lists being used. However, the social media companies revealed that Russians had purchased ads on their platforms.
The Committee said that it is unclear what the goal of the Internet Research Agency actually is, considering they post liberal and conservative content. One theory is that they want to strengthen the divide between the two parties in the United States and that it wasn’t the outcome of the election that they cared about. Instead, it was about the anger and conflict.
“This is not an opposition of free speech battle. This is actually a battle to try to protect free speech,” Republican Sen. James Lankford said. “If two Americans have a disagreement. Let’s have at it. If an outsider wants to come to it, we do have a problem with that.”
To remedy the problem of foreign bodies influencing American elections, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin suggested that Facebook, Google, and Twitter publish disclosures on political content and maintain a database of who is responsible for what political ad.
Case in point: In light of Facebook's disclosure that Russian trolls purchased 3,000 political ads during the 2016 election and posted 80,000 pieces of content that reached as many as 126 million Americans, Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana asked whether either North Korea or China had purchased ads on Facebook. The company's general counsel said that he wasn't aware of any such ads.
"How could you be aware?" Kennedy replied incredulously. He noted that anyone can create a series of shell companies to hide the financial backers behind a given ad, making it difficult to see the true origins of the money. "The truth of the matter is you have 5 million advertisers that change every month, every minute, probably every second," Kennedy said. "You don't have the ability to know who every one of those advertisers is today, right now."
"To your question about seeing behind the platform to understand if there are shell corporations, of course the answer is no," said Stretch.
The hearing was nominally about Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election. But it was also a proxy for growing concerns in many corners of the US that internet companies have grown too big, too powerful, and too rich. Senators' questions came with ample finger-wagging, as the committee wondered how companies that are wildly successful and employ some of the world's top technical talent failed to see these threats coming. As Kennedy put it, "I think you do enormous good, but your power sometimes scares me."
Some of the biggest disclosures came in the prepared testimony from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, as well as in the introduction from the ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. These are :
Russian electoral disinformation reached 126 million people on Facebook and 20 million on Instagram. That’s 146 million total.
Most Russian advertising on Facebook was used to build up pages, which then distributed their content “organically.”
Some of the Russian-linked Facebook ads were remarkably effective, receiving response rates as high as 24 percent, in a sample of 14 ads released by the House Intelligence Committee.
3.3 million Americans directly followed one of the Russian Facebook pages.
Despite that, with the evidence on hand, it would be impossible to say that the campaign swung the election
Neither Facebook nor Twitter has seen evidence that Russian pages used voter data to target ads or posts.
None of the platforms were dealing with the specific Russian electoral-disinformation campaign before the election and the ensuing intelligence-community report.
None of the companies have provided full-fledged support for the only legislation currently on the table, the Honest Ads Act.
In at least one instance, Russian groups created dueling events that led to a real-life confrontation, in this case at an Islamic center in Houston.
Facebook may not know precisely who was targeted by Russian ads, or even who was directly following all the pages that they’ve linked to the Internet Research Agency.
Facebook does not appear to have checked whether ads created by the known Russian pages were also run by other pages or accounts.
Russian trolls have continued to post content, including items related to postelection demonstrations, the Electoral College, the NFL kneeling dispute, more-general racial issues, and immigration.
Google did not revoke RT’s YouTube “Preferred” status because of its state links, but rather because of falling viewership.
The Russian campaign ads were all paid for in rubles.
Twitter says it automatically takes down 95 percent of terrorist accounts, 75 percent of them before they ever tweet.
PS.
Facebook's Stretch said the campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spent a combined $81 million on Facebook advertising during the 2016 presidential contest. That newly released figured came during questioning by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who suggested that the level of spending on Facebook ads by the Russia-based Internet Research Agency around the U.S. election — which the company has pegged at about $100,000 to promote some 3,000 ads — was insufficient to meaningfully shape how that election played out.
The New Yorker writes ;
What matters, though, is not that Russian interference reached a third of Americans—that, in fact, is a significant exaggeration of the testimony by Facebook’s general counsel, Colin Stretch, who said that a hundred and twenty-six million people, not necessarily Americans, “may have been served” content associated with Russian accounts sometime between 2015 and 2017, with a majority of impressions landing after the election. He also mentioned that “this equals about four-thousandths of one per cent of content in News Feed, or approximately one out of twenty-three thousand pieces of content.” Nor is it significant that, as a “CNN exclusive” headline announced, “Russian-linked Facebook ads targeted Michigan and Wisconsin.” The story that followed actually said nothing of the sort. The real revelation is this: Russian online interference was a god-awful mess, a cacophony.
Another Russian outlet, RBC, published the most detailed investigative report yet on the “troll factory.” RBC found that the company had a budget of roughly $2.2 million and employed between eight hundred and nine hundred people, about ten per cent of whom worked on American politics. The trolls’ job was not so much to aid a particular Presidential candidate as to wreak havoc by posting on controversial subjects. Their success was measured by the number of times a post was shared, retweeted, or liked. RBC calculated that, at most, two dozen of the trolls’ posts scored audiences of a million or more; the vast majority had less than a thousand page views. On at least a couple of occasions, the trolls organized protests in the U.S. simply by strategically posting the dates and times on Facebook.
Russians have long been convinced that their own politics are infiltrated by Americans. During the mass protests of 2011 and 2012, Putin famously accused Hillary Clinton personally of inciting the unrest.
Was the Moscow protest made any less real because a fake donor had brought cookies? Was the protest in New York in November of last year any less real, or any less opposed to Trump, because a Russia-linked account originally called for it? Is Trump any less President because Russians paid for some ads on Facebook? Is there any reason, at this point, to think that a tiny drop in the sea of Facebook ads changed any American votes? The answer to all of these questions is: no, not really.
The most interesting question is: What were the Russians doing? In the weeks leading up to the election, Putin made it clear that he expected Hillary Clinton to become President. There is every indication that Moscow was as surprised as New York when the vote results came in. In the aftermath, and following a perfectly symmetrical impulse, a great many Americans want to prove that the Russians elected Trump, and Americans did not.
If you are interested then we can analyse the technical aspects of the replies given by the big technical companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment