To be fair, it was @hansioux who started injecting the Russian collusion fantasies.
It was irrelevant because she showed us her character - clearly - without Trump having to lift a finger.
I get you’re offended by Trump, but I don’t get that some Americans haven’t figured out yet that no matter how bad they think Trump is, he’s still better than the alternative in 2016.
Oh come on, a bout of gonorrhea would be preferable to that fuckwit.
I can get on board with the idea that ergo Hillary was a worse candidate than a STD.
1 Like
The same US intelligence agencies that currently work for Trump has stated China interfered with Taiwan’s election using the Russian model.
From FOX News:
Taiwanese officials have also warned that Beijing is seeking to sway voters through the spread of disinformation online similar to Russia’s iinterfering in U.S. elections.
Washington is slowly but surely waking up to China’s multifaceted foreign influence operations. But many here remain skeptical about the threat of Beijing’s direct interference in American politics. The Trump administration said Beijing interfered in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, but there wasn’t a ton of visible evidence. After what just happened in Taiwan, however, few can now argue that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) doesn’t have the means and the motive to perpetrate such acts.
“CCP attempts to erode democratic processes and norms around the world threaten U.S. partnerships and prosperity,” six U.S. senators, led by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), wrote last week in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray. “Allegations such as those surrounding Taiwan’s recent elections must therefore be pursued with seriousness and urgency.”
…
Tsai futilely urged Taiwanese citizens to see Beijing’s effort for what it was — a Russian-style influence campaign.
Anyway, we can either pretend authoritarian states aren’t utilizing social media to manipulate election results, or we can do something to nullify their effects.
Ah, according to DPP politicians. Yes, this is very persuasive. 
Really, all China needs to do is provide better-paying jobs and it can win Taiwan without a fight.
Frankly the only thing new is a new tool called social media. Authoritarian states have always tried to manipulate the results of democratic elections.
What would be interesting to measure would be the effectiveness of social media on election outcomes. Nobody knows the answer to that, at least as far as I know.
Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate, and it was obvious that her character made her even more unfit for office than Trump (and yes, that’s saying something). That she lost the election does not prove that social media did her in, or that Trump must have colluded with Russia.
1 Like
There is nothing wrong with social media itself, but something seriously wrong when personal data can be obtained by authoritarian states and use that information to generate a large enough echo chamber. It is even more effective when they have the cooperation of local news networks. That is especially evident in Taiwan.
Democracy is about giving people the right to choose. When you have a massive foreign espionage operation focus on creating mass amounts of false information with the ability to precisely deliver them to the target, you have stripped the people’s right to real information and disabled their right to choose.
This is highly debatable. There are studies that suggest social media are a big factor in rising teen suicide rates.
According to this study the US ranks first with interfering in 81 election from 1946 to 2000, followed by Russia (incl. the Soviet Union) with 36.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with your point about the potential harm authoritarian states can do (on paper) to a democratic election, but I’m not convinced that an election can be swung.
One reason is that the more a message is tailored to an individual, the more it becomes obvious that somebody is trying to cook the books. Already people find Google’s ability to tailor ads based on browsing history to be creepy af. I think that campaign ads tailored the same way are also probably easier to ignore than authoritarian states think.
My hunch is that the high-water mark has been reached, and FB et al are already past peak-influence. (again, would be nice to have more data on this)
That is what happens when social media abuses user data for their own benefit. Facebook once divided users into two groups, one only sees positive information, the other only negative information, for an extended period of time just to see which would generate more money.
Eh didn´t Xi himself patted himself in the back on his New Year speech, telling how successful their intervention in Taiwan had been?Comes from the top. Public statement.
As to the campaign… it is still going on. The level goe sbeyond bots, it si simply nonsense. The scary part is locals lap it like cream.
This is key. There’s nothing you can do to get rid of fake news in a free society, so you need to have an informed electorate.
There are studies saying that marketing has an influence on people, or that news(or fake news) influence people’s behavour or choices, but unless I get evidence I call bs and consider it a conspiracy theory
Are you saying there’s no evidence in those studies? 
Nah, I’m just saying you seem to have different standards to the Donald
A lot of evidence is already public that Russia interfeared in the election(if it tipped the election of if it even made a difference is debatable though)
But either way, it should be investigated if for no other reason to understand the threat better
Russia tries to interfere in every election, and has done so since the Cold War days. This is nothing new. The U.S. does this all the time as well. What’s different this time is the Democrats using this to try and nullify an election.
I’m sure the spy agencies are studying this in great detail. This is what they do, especially in the age of cyberwarfare.
1 Like
So, do I understand you correctly. Your objection is not so much to investigations per se, but more to the fact that they may or may not be used for partisan gain ?
So, a more bipartisan open enquiry in the matter would be fine ?