Having recently lived in Russia, people still have not forgotten Yeltsin, and they won't. Luckily at the end of the day however, they mostly separate their frustrations with the American government and the citizens of America.
I don't understand this line of argument. Isn't it clear that the people condemning election interference in the US are also against election interference perpetrated by the US? It's like saying that it's silly for Americans to be upset that they are being bombed by a country, since America bombs other countries.
In Russia there's the government and the people, in US, in theory, the government is the people.
It doesn't really matter if Russians are frustrated with the "government" or American people.
Russians chose more Cold War style conflict.
BTW Putin ia really not as omnipotent as some people think.
Not only did the poster point to source material for his claims, he constructed a sound argument based upon the age-old wisdom of asking the question, "Who benefits?"
I didn't even see one value judgment about the US in the comment.
Let me address some points:
1. Never did I mention Facebook shouldn't rid its platform of bad users-- I'm glad they are (and if this hadn't happened they probably wouldn't have, again, cause it takes time and money).
2. Never did I say Americans were dumb or insult them in any other way that should make someone believe I hate them. Saying a people is scared shouldn't be taken as an insult, many peoples and individuals are scared of different things.
3. I didn't expect this to be read as a research paper haha. I'll add more references next time. In regards to the one you pointed out (wether the Russian meddling had high impact), I'd suggest these other articles by The Verge [1] and the New York Times [2] to form an opinion. I'd also suggest watching Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN Crossfire [3]: he was talking about the loss of civilized discourse and transformation of American Politics into a divisive "me vs. you" game back in 2004, before social media was widespread.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17138854/cambridge-analyt...
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-us-el...
Sure you did:
> That being said, there are inflammatory parties on the internet, and since Americans now seem to think the future of their country depends on removing them, Facebook needs to abide for the sake of PR
You're implying that the only reason Facebook would need to get rid of bad actors is "for the sake of PR", and that Americans only want to be rid of bad actors "because they're scared."
> Never did I say Americans were dumb or insult them in any other way
Sure you did, you implied through your tone throughout the comment that the desire to be rid of bad actors on facebook is a knee-jerk reaction that Americans are only making due to fear.
It's the tone of your post that is being critiqued, not explicit words you're using per se.
Media outlets noticed there is a lot of spam and misinformation happening on social media, and saw not only great headlines to garner clicks, but also an opportunity to make people distrust smaller sources of information in favor or big, established brands and companies. They drove subscriptions up by creating an aura of mistrust and impending doom [2][3] after historical decline due to the internet.
Did the inflammatory posts actually affect the election? It's unclear, and if so it was likely less so than the coverage of traditional media outlets [4]. That being said, there are inflammatory parties on the internet, and since Americans now seem to think the future of their country depends on removing them, Facebook needs to abide for the sake of PR. Note: this actually costs Facebook time and money (they are hiring a lot of people for this effect [5]) but they've been bashed so much on the media they need all the PR stunts they can get.
It is a slippery slope, I agree. But it's the one people in the US want to follow, again, because they are scared. Fearful people take slippery slopes and focus on apparent short-term solutions instead of long-term objectives (fixing the American political system so the population actually votes for who is president would be a good place to start). There's that quote from the Star Wars trilogy (the best line in the prequels, IMO): "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." This comes to mind here. People will willfully act against their interests out of fear.
[1]: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/americas-long-histor...
[2]: https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/media/nytimes-subscription-...
[3]: https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/washington-post-digit...
[4]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-in...
[5]: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/facebook-senate-testimony-do...