Surely all major powers tried to influence all elections of interest wherever and whenever they could? Both then and now?

It's also much more difficult to deny a leaflet drop, but we have people here on a very technically oriented forum denying the effectiveness of these campaigns. I guess it's a positive that they are not being denied that they are happening.??

I'm just honest here, I have to assume we've been meddling in each other's leadership and civil directions for a long long time. Like forever. And I just can't believe that the USA is somehow unique either as a perpetrator or a victim. I could believe that there was a time when the USA was more effective and that time may not be right how, but the "coming back to bite you" argument doesn't ring true.

Now with Internet the power is "democratised".

I absolutely think the US currently does culturally destabilizing stuff against what it considers its geopolitical adversaries. They are also. I don’t think it’s a causal effect in either direction - I.e., the US did X so everyone turned around and did it back. It it’s more like a well understood concept that’s been going on for decades if not longer.

The key I think is the US political system other than in the early 1900’s, essentially since FDR, has been extremely stable. There was an enormous amount of cultural effort put into homogenizing the social and political dialogue during WW2, and even more in the 1950’s. In the 1960s the Soviet Union absolutely manipulated political unrest to their advantage and it weakened the will of the people to stand for the Vietnam war and helped nudge us into retreat gaining a Cold War victory. 70’s and 80’s saw a retrenchment of homogenization, but the 90’s individualism weakened the walls so to speak in favor of globalization, multiculturalism, etc (which fwiw are all great things in my mind).

I think the change is the advent of algorithmic social networks, memes, broad homogenized cultural enclaves that span spacial and social constraints, etc. This coupled with the broad access to interaction with the cultural “others” (I.e., while generally q-anon wackos isolate together, they’re constantly exposed to information and cultural influence by more liberal culture due to the internet, creating an opportunity to polarize).

This is specifically being exploited by nation states against each other. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and the “bad guys” dominated by authoritarian dictators and oppressive regimes, are extremely well aware these technologies can be used to foment cultural discord that would destabilize their nations, not just internally but by external agents, and have cracked down on it aggressively. Knowing democratic and individualist cultures won’t and can’t, they have ramped up learning how to exploit the dynamics of algorithms, cultural polarization, etc. So it feels very one sided - because it is. It’s that way though because “they” have defended themselves against this vector of disruption, while “we” have explicitly invested in exposing everyone as much as possible to the vector for profit.

But the history isn’t one sided then and somehow swung around against the US. It’s more that this specific vector of cultural attack is a key weakness in the west because we believe it’s more valuable than dangerous, while “they” believe it’s more dangerous than valuable.

My belief is like a virus analogy, society will build meme antibodies and be able to more clearly distinguish mandating information. Most of the victims of this stuff tend to be poorly educated with minimal sophistication in online interactions. They are also not generally accepted in broader society, and over time the broader society will replace these vulnerable pockets of more susceptible minds and the effectiveness of cultural psyops via algorithmic and meme attacks will weaken quickly and social stability will emerge naturally. But it’ll take time.

Interestingly this means the authoritarian regimes populace are still highly vulnerable to highly sophisticated attacks. All it would take is a weakening of the walls against social media and algorithmic manipulation. I actually think you see this under the radar on platforms like signal and telegram, but they’re not well understood as there’s explicitly no national dialog allowed.

Is your point that this is so inexpensive that it’s hardly a line item on a budget? Printing leaflets and flying a plane.

Seems a lot cheaper than defending Ukraine from a madman terrorist. A madman terrorist in cahoots with PRC.

The effectiveness of the leaflets greatly depended on the number of people that actually found them. Social platforms allow you to have your post placed directly in front of the eyeballs of your target. You even get analytics on the campaign.

I was just using old vs new techniques to show how much more modern day shenanigans are

Whoever paid money to show me those ads, wasted it.

"I'm not addicted. I can stop at any time"

I think there's plenty of evidence that counters your claim.

There are lots of things going on here, I'd be careful about being too dismissive about this.

So this is funny. USA wanted Pakistani prime minister out so when he leaked the cable showing American meddling, Pakistani courts found him guilty of leaking state secrets and had him removed from office?

Recently he was awarded 5 year jail sentence for among other things, for having "improper marriage" with his wife. As in her waiting period apparently from divorce - remarriage wasn't enough but that being a mere irregularity, courts had to find him guilty because they want to crucify him. Why?