Undoubtedly, Russia has worked to advance its interests (through use of misinformation and spin) during the 2016 election. Unfortunately, without an appropriate timeline that displays conditions that breeds opportunity for this behavior, this narrative of election hacking does not do us justice.<p>The big fish (which should have been included in the article) was the intense internet campaign made during the 2013 Ukraine crisis. Preceding the crisis, the Snowden revelations produced an immediate, immense distrust in our government and institutions, giving way to a wide window of exploitation. There are heaps of ostensive evidence of how the Russian regime took advantage of these events on multiple fronts: bolstering fringe groups in the EU, hijacking public conversations online, intimidating and harassing opposition voices (which I've experienced), and adding pressure to national dialogue through injection of Whataboutism and disingenuous innuendo.<p>The response from various online communities during this period has been nothing short of courageous. I've personally witnessed a multitude of diligent detection and pushback across the political and intellectual spectrum during the crisis, not only due to organic voices, but also a strong intelligence apparatus that helps to detect, analyze, and disrupt these attacks. These pieces continually avoid citing sources outside of the political spectrum that helps to make clear sense of the issue. I acknowledge that certain forces of good do not want to be in the spotlight, however as time goes on this looks like a missed opportunity to make a bold statement against not only this behavior, but also all malignant and criminal behavior that takes place online.<p>The confidence lost in our institutions is owed to nothing more than the political climate itself. We chase the ghosts of "collusion" and "influence" and other ambiguous terms. The time for scrutiny and hot takes are over, we should be well underway into a severe, resolute response. Instead we are packed into a clown car, driving around in circles. God help us.
I remember when Obama when to the UK to voice his support for Macron in the UK elections. Does that not count as a USA-sponsored ad? Because it sure has the same effect and intention as one.<p>Why the double standard?