[m00g00]

What if what the foreign actors are saying is the same as domestic? What if someone from the UK or France or wherever has a good strategic idea, are you not allowed to use it?

Pretty sure everyone in the entire world with internet access chimed in at some point on the US's last election. I doubt many people looked into the country of origin of a tweet before deciding on whether or not to be influenced by it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What if what the foreign actors are saying is the same as domestic?

Then say it as yourself. Nobody gets mad at Sweden or Israel for holding events, taking out ads or lobbying lawmakers. The issue is Cambridge Analytica lying about who they are. That’s why one is legal and the other is illegal.

[m00g00]

Fine, and they should be punished for whatever election laws they broke.

But when it comes to people influencing people, especially over the internet, I doubt very many knew or cared of the country of origin an opinion/idea/piece of "information" came from if it jived with them. Much less whether the identity of the poster was falsified.

Indeed with the anonymity provided by the internet, no nationality whatsoever, foreign or domestic, need be provided.

[goalieca]

There’s a distinction between voter persuasion and voter manipulation. Much of spycraft is about manipulation.

[m00g00]

A lot of people would see it as persuasion by their side, and manipulation by the other. Same with "information" and "propaganda".

As an aside, I kind of appreciate how in the past, mostly before WW2, governments would have agencies such as "Ministry of Propaganda", or "Department of War". Now we use doublespeak terms ("Public Affairs", "Defense") to calm the masses, even though they mean the same thing.

[goalieca]

> Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics.[1] By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive.

> Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, doctors can try to persuade patients to change unhealthy habits. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject it, and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute underhanded manipulation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

I would say that persuasion based on facts is perfectly fine. It’s the deceit that was particularly troublesome last election. And by using targeted social media campaigns derived/aided by private data and possibly behavioural and psychological profiles, people were easily manipulated for the purpose of another nation state. The foreign influence aspect is a real challenge for democracy and sovereignty

[m00g00]

> I would say that persuasion based on facts is perfectly fine. It’s the deceit that was particularly troublesome

This is just using different terms to say the same thing. Facts can and often are used to manipulate, by framing and context, and by what is left out. Opinion, supposition, and FUD are also commonly used to persuade. That people usually believe what they are saying does not mean their opinions were not originally based on deceitful or self-serving propaganda.

> last election.

This has been going on since politics existed (ie. civilization).

Foreign influence is another issue. It is however deceitful to suggest that the issues foreigners (Russians) are accused of inflaming were domestically non-issues, non-controversial, or not-inflammatory before their interjection.