My new piece on what the recent Senate studies about Russian social media posts actually show: a juvenile, microscopic operation massively over-hyped by political elites, pundits, & "experts" with sketchy agendas & contemptuous views of average voters:
thenation.com/article/russia…
thenation.com/article/russia…
Some points to stress: 1) it's tough to suggest that Russian clickbait helped decide the 2016 election when even the Senate authors acknowledge that just "11% of the total content" from Russian trolls "was related to the election", & their posts "minimally about the candidates." 
2) the widespread claim that Russian trolls reached 126M on Facebook is in fact a spin on Facebook's own "estimate":
3) Have you noticed that no one who speculates that Russian posts swung the 2016 election ever cites a single post that they deem to be effective toward that outcome? Perhaps it's because there's nothing they can cite w/o embarrassment. These were 3 of the most popular posts:
4) In line w/ views of reporters that Russian troll farm is in fact "a social media marketing campaign", the Oxford study authors note that its activities were "consistent with techniques used in digital marketing." Maybe selling merch & sex toys wasn't a plot to "sow discord."
5) I want to stress that the Senate report sparking panic about Russian clickbait warns of Russia's “human asset recruitment strategy," in which "exploiting a personal vulnerability... is a timeless espionage practice." Their top example features Jesus & a masturbation hotline:
6) The "false flag" operation in Alabama cost $100k, but all involved insist it was "impossible" to have an impact. If New Knowledge's $100k can't impact a 2017 Senate race, how could Russians' $100k (or likely less: ) impact a 2016 US presidential race?
7) One window into the utility of blaming Russia -- and how pathetic it is -- is the fact that Hillary Clinton (falsely) accused "the Russians" of "so precisely" targeting the two key states, Michigan & Wisconsin, that she failed to visit in the campaign's final months:
8) Clinton suggesting Russia played a role in her losing Michigan & Wisconsin -- 2 states she ignored -- illustrates disinformation in the name of combating Russian disinformation to absolve failed elites. Another use is targeting those who challenge elites, like the Corbyn camp:
A lot of great feedback. Last point: isn't it amazing that, almost 2019, an article pointing out that Russian social media clickbait is just clickbait -- not a sweeping, sophisticated propaganda operation -- & arguing that it didn't swing the 2016 election, has to be written?
A lot of video outlets covered Senate reports on Russian social media. Amazing that even progressive ones took it seriously w/o minimal scrutiny. The 1 exception I saw was, of course, @jimmy_dore e.g.:
() () ()
() () ()
