Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.
The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.
One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”
The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.
“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.
Mr. Morgan said in an interview that the Russian botnet ruse “does not ring a bell,” adding that others had worked on the effort and had written the report. He said he saw the project as “a small experiment” designed to explore how certain online tactics worked, not to affect the election.
Mr. Morgan said he could not account for the claims in the report that the project sought to “enrage and energize Democrats” and “depress turnout” among Republicans, partly by emphasizing accusations that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls when he was a prosecutor in his 30s.
“The research project was intended to help us understand how these kind of campaigns operated,” said Mr. Morgan. “We thought it was useful to work in the context of a real election but design it to have almost no impact.”
The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.
But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come. Campaign veterans in both parties fear the Russian example may set off a race to the bottom, in which candidates choose social media manipulation because they fear their opponents will.
“Some will do whatever it takes to win,” said Dan Bayens, a Kentucky-based Republican consultant. “You’ve got Russia, which showed folks how to do it, you’ve got consultants willing to engage in this type of behavior and political leaders who apparently find it futile to stop it.”
There is no evidence that Mr. Jones sanctioned or was even aware of the social media project. Joe Trippi, a seasoned Democratic operative who served as a top adviser to the Jones campaign, said he had noticed the Russian bot swarm suddenly following Mr. Moore on Twitter. But he said it was impossible that a $100,000 operation had an impact on the race.
Mr. Trippi said he was nonetheless disturbed by the stealth operation. “I think the big danger is somebody in this cycle uses the dark arts of bots and social networks and it works,” he said. “Then we’re in real trouble.”
Despite its small size, the Alabama project brought together some prominent names in the world of political technology. The funding came from Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, who has sought to help Democrats catch up with Republicans in their use of online technology.
The money passed through American Engagement Technologies, run by Mikey Dickerson, the founding director of the United States Digital Service, which was created during the Obama administration to try to upgrade the federal government’s use of technology. Sara K. Hudson, a former Justice Department fellow now with Investing in Us, a tech finance company partly funded by Mr. Hoffman, worked on the project, along with Mr. Morgan.
A close collaborator of Mr. Hoffman, Dmitri Mehlhorn, the founder of Investing in Us, said in a statement that “our purpose in investing in politics and civic engagement is to strengthen American democracy” and that while they do not “micromanage” the projects they fund, they are not aware of having financed projects that have used deception. Mr. Dickerson declined to comment and Ms. Hudson did not respond to queries.
The Alabama project got started as Democrats were coming to grips with the Russians’ weaponizing of social media to undermine the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and promote Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Morgan reached out at the time to Renée DiResta, who would later join New Knowledge and was lead author of the report on Russian social media operations released this week.
“I know there were people who believed the Democrats needed to fight fire with fire,” Ms. DiResta said, adding that she disagreed. “It was absolutely chatter going around the party.”
But she said Mr. Morgan simply asked her for suggestions of online tactics worth testing. “My understanding was that they were going to investigate to what extent they could grow audiences for Facebook pages using sensational news,” she said.
Mr. Morgan confirmed that the project created a generic page to draw conservative Alabamians — he said he couldn’t remember its name — and that Mac Watson, one of multiple write-in candidates, contacted the page. “But we didn’t do anything on his behalf,” he said.
The report, however, says the Facebook page agreed to “boost” Mr. Watson’s campaign and stayed in regular touch with him, and was “treated as an advisor and the go-to media contact for the write-in candidate.’’ The report claims the page got him interviews with The Montgomery Advertiser and The Washington Post .
Mr. Watson, who runs a patio supply company in Auburn, Ala., confirmed that he got some assistance from a Facebook page whose operators seemed determined to stay in the shadows.
Of dozens of conservative Alabamian-oriented pages on Facebook that he wrote to, only one replied. “You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be inclined to endorse you,” the unnamed operator of the page wrote. After Mr. Watson answered a single question about abortion rights as a sort of test, the page offered an endorsement, though no money.
“They never spent one red dime as far as I know on anything I did — they just kind of told their 400 followers, ‘Hey, vote for this guy,’” Mr. Watson said.
Mr. Watson never spoke with the page’s author or authors by phone, and they declined a request for meeting. But he did notice something unusual: his Twitter followers suddenly ballooned from about 100 to about 10,000. The Facebook page’s operators asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters.
Shortly before the election, the page sent him a message, wishing him luck.
The report does not say whether the project purchased the Russian bot Twitter accounts that suddenly began to follow Mr. Moore. But it takes credit for “radicalizing Democrats with a Russian bot scandal” and points to stories on the phenomenon in the mainstream media. “Roy Moore flooded with fake Russian Twitter followers,” reported The New York Post.
Inside the Moore campaign, officials began to worry about online interference.
“We did have suspicions that something odd was going on,” said Rich Hobson, Mr. Moore’s campaign manager. Mr. Hobson said that although he did not recall any hard evidence of interference, the campaign complained to Facebook about potential chicanery.
“Any and all of these things could make a difference,” Mr. Hobson said. “It’s definitely frustrating, and we still kick ourselves that Judge Moore didn’t win.”
When Election Day came, Mr. Jones became the first Alabama Democrat elected to the Senate in a quarter of a century, defeating Mr. Moore by 21,924 votes in a race that drew more than 22,800 write-in votes. More than 1.3 million ballots were cast over all.
Many of the write-in votes went to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Condoleezza Rice — an Alabama native and former secretary of state — certain popular football coaches and Jesus Christ. Mr. Watson drew just a few hundred votes.
Mr. Watson noticed one other oddity. The day after the vote, the Facebook page that had taken such an interest in him had vanished.
“It was a group that, like, honest to God, next day was gone,” said Mr. Watson.
“It was weird,” he said. “The whole thing was weird.”
Jonathan Martin and Rachel Shorey contributed reporting.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
40 visitors
I have classified this "piece" by the New York Times as Op-Ed. It is spin of a news story involving election interference by referring to what took place as "an experiment". An event that Facebook was willingly complicit in.
This was not "election interference". It was a political party testing out tactics they saw used by a foreign government during the 2016 election. The difference is that they're not a foreign government trying to manipulate an election, they're one of the political parties on the ballot doing everything they can within the law to win. The fact is much of the things the Russians did wasn't exactly illegal other than their hiding who was behind it. The Russians reached 120 million Americans with their propaganda, Democrats likely want to reach those 120 million gullible Americans as well, and that's perfectly legal.
The other thing this study can provide is some hard numbers on what kind of effect targeted propaganda is likely to have and was likely to have had in the 2016 election. Because it's never been analytically studied we don't have any actual evidence that the Russian propaganda that reached 120 million Americans had a measurable effect, but of course we all know it likely did. To say it didn't is like saying nobody is ever effected by the commercials they watch and the advertisements they see. Now, while that is something companies who overtly and subliminally market to you daily would like you to believe, we all know that they do. This study and others like it may be able to begin to quantify the effect social media marketing has on consumers today.
I would suspect that any votes that were changed by the Russian's "interference" was minuscule. Certainly none would have favored Trump, with all the negative press he was otherwise getting.
By what evidence? Why would it be likely? Could your vote be influenced by what "others" say on social media? Your vote wouldn't go to Donald Trump no matter what anyone said.
This was not "election interference". It was a political party testing out tactics they saw used by a foreign government during the 2016 election.
So say the activists who did it.
What about Facebook volunteering? What about Facebook covering up?
As I said, hopefully the study can produce some quantifiable percentage that did change their vote. Why would it be likely? Are you serious? Why would political propaganda via social media that reached 120 million Americans have had a possible effect on their vote? Because political ads, social media campaigns and targeted marketing WORKS, otherwise NO ONE would bother doing it or paying millions of dollars for it. All of the marketing research done shows how suceptible humans are to advertising and simple propaganda methods, and I believe the Russian propaganda was especially effective on the poorly educated gullible rubes who voted for Donald Trump. They lapped up every bogus story, every fake report about Hillary, from her supposed "illness", the pizza parlor sex ring, the bullshit Seth Rich accusations, the bullshit about the email server and Benghazi that still has a bunch of dumb fucks believing she did something illegal even though the FBI concluded she was merely "careless", and because of that conclusion the dim bulbs all believe there's some secret deep state cabal running America behind the scenes. Ockams razor state that the simplest answer is the most likely one, a deep state is not a simple answer. I almost wish there was some deep state group behind everyting, I'd have a lot more confidence in a group of faceless civil servants to run things than I have in the feckless and incompetent Donald Trump. So yes, I think a lot of dumb shits got bamboozled by Russian propaganda, one even showed up with his assault rifle at the pizza parlor, and this study might help us understand how many were likely effected.
The "study"? The study seems to have been geared to defeating Roy Moore.
I believe the Russian propaganda was especially effective on the poorly educated gullible rubes who voted for Donald Trump.
What about the hate filled pompous scum with college degrees who voted for Hillary? Did they believe there was 17 intelligence organizations warning of Russian interference?
that still has a bunch of dumb fucks believing she did something illegal even though the FBI concluded she was merely "careless"
If the FBI investigated Trump like they did Hillary it would be the liberals rioting in front of James Comey's house. Of course we can't expect much from them. They can't even accept the results of an election. An election that let us see what they are really made of. They hate free speech, most of the population as well as the Constitution. Thus it had to be the "Russians" or "Trump's conspiracy with the Russians" or better still, when that turns out not to be true, let's just find a way to remove him cause we are fuckin' progressives and we preside over all the workin' slobs!
I almost wish there was some deep state group behind everyting,
I'm sure you do
Are you still claiming Russia wasn't behind the attacks? Really? And regardless of whether it was seven or seventeen, they all unanimously agreed Russia was behind the attacks and Putin did intend, by his actions and words, to help Donald Trump get elected. So those supposed "pompous scum" are apparently only "pompous" because they have more than half a brain and could see right through the bullshit lies being spread about Hillary. She was and still is 100 times the statesman Donald Trump will ever be. Was she a perfect candidate? Of course not, she had baggage which is why I didn't vote for her in the primary. But she would have been a FAR better and more stable President than this bumbling fool that Russia helped get into the oval office to wreak havoc. Putin could not be happier, even if all he gets out of his investment is the chaos he's created which has allowed him to build up troops on the border of Ukraine, seize Ukrainian assets with impunity, condone chemical attacks in Syria and test new nuclear missile technology as they did this morning. Even without getting the sanctions removed and the Magnitsky Act repealed, they're still huge winners on their election meddling investment, and many dumb fuck conservative Republicans are just sitting there cheering them on.
Don't you mean Trump? What is being investigated?
And regardless of whether it was seven or seventeen
Your complaint was about election interference - The NY Times concocted the 17 Intelligence agency story and later apologized for it and you talk about social media propaganda, Hillary had the MSM propaganda!
But she would have been a FAR better and more stable President than this bumbling fool that Russia helped get into the oval office to wreak havoc.
That's your opinion. The people she called "deplorable" wooped ler!
Nothing new here as far as political chicanery. Pulitzer was doing the exact same thing at the turn of the century, Hearst was doing it in the 30's and 40's.
What is different here is the use of technology and the internet....
We are passing back into a place we had grown out of, a place where the yellow is more important than the journalism.....
And with the population being dumbed down to accept anything they see as a one liner on social media as absolute fact?
It's going to get a lot worse than it is now before it ever gets better...
And as demonstrated in the late 1800's and early 1900's very effective in manipulating public opinions. (and actions)
Political chicanery? Social media propaganda campaigns aren't illegal. No one was mad at Russia because of the method they meddled, it was because an enemy foreign government WAS doing the meddling. If an American political party wants to run a social media campaign and spend $1.25 million a month doing it, there's nothing illegal about that as long as they are properly tracking the money spent and reporting it. We know for a fact Russia, a foreign enemy determined to destroy or at least cripple western Democracy, meddled in our election, put their invisible thumb on the scale, we just might never know how much pressure they managed to apply. And we know Russia desperately wanted Donald Trump to win, Putin has openly admitted such, it's just hard to understand why that fact apparently doesn't bother Republicans. I suppose it makes more sense when we realize that 40% of Republicans polled say they think of Russia as a friend and ally instead of the seething backstabbing authoritarian government they are run by a murderous smug faced piece of shit megalomaniac.
Political propaganda usage extends all the way back to the Revolution for god's sake, nothing new about it.
Pulitzer put print media into the mix where before the papers generally stayed out of the business of spreading it. Hearst refined it two decades later. The power of the visual arts (TV) led to industry rules against posing propaganda which were held to thru 1995 then they went by the wayside.
This is using the net to spread propaganda, I'm not so worried about the Russians as I am about our own two parties learning the most effective ways of doing it. And to me it seems like the democrats by testing it in an actual election are already in the process of just that.
That is the real evil of this.....
And we know Russia desperately wanted Donald Trump to win, Putin has openly admitted such, it's just hard to understand why that fact apparently doesn't bother Republicans. I suppose it makes more sense when we realize that 40% of Republicans polled say they think of Russia as a friend and ally instead of the seething backstabbing authoritarian government they are run by a murderous smug faced piece of shit megalomaniac.
Putin has said no such thing. How would it be to his advantage? Trump has been much rougher on him than Obama was.
So getting out of Syria and handing it over to Russia Is harder on putin?
trump stopping sanctions on Russian oligarchs is being harder?
Not saying a word when Russia takes Ukrainian ships is being harder?
Putin has said a lot of things, and none of them are good for us. Trump has given him more than he thought he could get. We are weakened. And he most definitely wanted Trump to win, and took steps to make that happen. Which involved a lot of Trump people. But here. He makes no secret of it.
How so?
Our stated purpose in Syria is to remove ISIS/ISIL. Nothing else. ISIS/ISIL is no longer able to hold territory in Syria. Russia, China, Iran, and Syria can mop up the remainder. Sorry, no Obama/Clinton ulterior motives of removing Assad and destabilizing yet another country this time around.
Are Oligarchs the same thing as the Russian government? Oh, and it is just one Oligarch; and not even the Oligarch himself- just 3 companies he owns majority stock in- and has agreed to reduce his ownership below 50% in return for sanctions being lifted.
Facts matter.
I am sure Obama would have shook a stern finger at them; and threatened more sanctions that haven't had affect. No matter what Trump did the left would have found a problem with it. If he came out strong he would have been accused of trying to start WWIII. What does the left expect him to do- move US warships into the area to protect Ukrainian freight lines? We already too close for comfort to Russian forces in Syria. If Obama wouldn't have backed a coup against a duly elected pro Russian government in the Ukraine we wouldn't be in this position.
" Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" a reporter asked at the joint press conference Putin and Trump held after their one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, Finland.
Speaking through a translator, Putin answered , " Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."
Sure do. The company you listed a link to, it said in the agreement that the Kremlin can buy the stakes in the company.
Do you actually think the threats in the middle east have disappeared? Wow, trump must be magic. No matter what some people say about it, it is abandoning people we promised to help.
I swear, no matter what happens, the blunders trump makes, it is always Obama was horrible.
One of these days maybe some will finally see what a buffoon trump is. That he has no idea what he is doing.
Some need to take off the blinders. What we expect him to do, is not kiss putin's ass.
place where the yellow is more important than the journalism..
As this demonstrates, the yellow and the journalism work hand in hand. The MSM, true to it biases, took up the Democratic created false story that "Russian bots" were supporting Moore and amplified the 100,000 investment tenfold for the Democratic Senator. That of course, doesn't count the progressives stooges who parroted the allegations about "Russian bots" on discussion sites like this for free.
Notice the stooges don't seem to care they were played for fools. Or maybe they haven't figured it out yet. Always hard to tell.
The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million
This "little experiment" spent about as much in one state as the Russians did nationally.
The "little experiment" spent $100,000 in total while the Russians spent $1.25 million a month during the 2016 campaign. So your statement is a lie. How can you not see that? Is math not a strong suit?