The US Is Fighting a Disinformation War — and Losing
A report declassified by the National Intelligence Council last month explains exactly how foreign powers tried to influence Americans during the 2020 election. Spoiler alert: Things don't look good.
Russian Hacker
The report, titled Foreign Threats to the US 2020 Federal Election, was compiled with help from every corner of the intelligence community.
The CIA, FBI, INR, NSA, DHS, NIC, and the Treasury Department were all involved in its preparation. The bombshell report has the weight of the entirety of US intelligence behind it – and it reveals a lot.
The National Intelligence Council AssessmentWYFF NBC 4
First, the good news: They found no evidence that any foreign power directly interfered in our election infrastructure. That means they believe that there were no successful cyber attacks on the technical aspects of the election, including voter registration, casting and counting ballots, or reporting results. The results of the election are completely secure.
The bad news is that they found a lot of evidence that multiple foreign countries tried to influence our election. The assessment defines these attempts as "overt and covert efforts or actors acting as agents of, or on behalf of, foreign governments intended to affect directly or indirectly a US election including candidates, political parties, voters or their preferences, or political processes." Basically, they tried to influence American minds.
The majority of the report focuses on the influence operations of Russia. Russian operatives, most of whom were operating under the instruction of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, conducted a series of influence operations "aimed at denigrating President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US."
So how did the Russians attempt to reach these goals? This is where the assessment gets slightly more vague. The report noted that the "analytic judgements outlined here are identical to those in the classified version, but this declassified document does not include full supporting information and does not discuss specific intelligence reports, sources, or methods."
However, a number of methods are discussed. Most of the disinformation was spread online by way of government-sanctioned troll farms. A troll farm is an organized operation consisting of many users who may work together to generate online traffic aimed at affecting public opinion, inflaming division, and spreading misinformation and disinformation. They create false social media accounts by the thousands and use them to leave inflammatory comments, spread deliberate falsehoods, and work to influence public opinions.
The report found that Russia's largest troll farm, the Kremlin-controlled Lakhta Internet Research (previously known as the Internet Research Agency) has only grown since its inception in 2014. In addition to their efforts from Russia, they also established short-lived subsidiary troll farms in Mexico, Ghana, and Nigeria after many of their accounts were restricted by social media platforms.
Other actors involved in spreading Russia's messages were Russian senior national security officials and intelligence officials, Russian state media, and a whole network of Ukraine-linked individuals with ties to the Russian Federal Security Service.
Konstantin Kilimnik and Andrii Derkach are the only two people named directly in the report. You may remember Kilimnik from the 800 times he was mentioned in the Senate intelligence committee's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election due to his close ties to Trump's then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
Kilimnik, Derkach, and associates successfully met with media conduits and US officials and "provided materials to Trump administration-linked US persons." Apparently, they even produced a documentary that appeared on a US media network in January 2020. The report does not mention a specific network or documentary, but Business Insider has alleged that the documentary referred to is The Ukraine Hoax: Impeachment, Biden Cash, Mass Murder, which appeared on One American News Network.
That makes sense, particularly because the documentary matches the main narrative of the Russian campaign. The assessment explains that "The primary effort the IC [intelligence community] uncovered revolved around a narrative—that Russian actors began spreading as early as 2014—alleging corrupt ties between President Biden, his family, and other US officials and Ukraine." Basically, the Hunter Biden scandal was the Russians' brainchild.
Were the Russian trolls successful in their mission? Well, according to a December poll from Rasmussen Reports, 56% of Americans believe it is likely that Joe Biden was consulted about and perhaps profited from his son's overseas business deals. A shocking 70% said they were following the story closely or very closely.
Russia's influence efforts took up the majority of the report, but they weren't the only nation mentioned. Iran also waged an information war on America; but unlike Russia, they were anti-Trump.
The assessment explains that the "whole" of the Iranian government "intended to undercut the reelection prospects of former President Trump and to further its longstanding objectives of exacerbating divisions in the US, creating confusion, and undermining the legitimacy of US elections and institutions."
Iran, like Russia, accomplished their goals mostly online. They also used troll farms and online actors. They sent emails pretending to be the Proud Boys and threatened Democrats, and they produced and spread a video alleging to show voter fraud.
Iranian trolls created over 1,000 pieces of content that criticized Trump, identified alleged voter fraud, and played on perceived US vulnerabilities such as Covid-19, civil unrest, and the economic recession. However, the assessment does note that much of this content was subsequently removed by US social media companies.
Russia was pro-Trump and Iran was anti-Trump; but notably, Iran was not particularly pro-Biden. The assessment explains that "Tehran's efforts were aimed at denigrating former President Trump, not actively promoting his rivals."
You'll notice that a common theme for both Russia and Iran was to try and make people trust America's election system less. Both countries actively created and promoted false claims of voter fraud online, and they were incredibly successful. One month before the election, a Gallup poll showed a record low level of trust in the accuracy of America's election system.
Even after the election, the effects of this mistrust are still being felt. In the most recent election survey by Pew Research, 76% of Trump voters incorrectly believed that Trump definitely or probably won the election, and 70% of Trump voters believed there was widespread illegal voting and fraud.
Trump himself likely owns a lot of the blame for these beliefs, but Russian and Iranian influence certainly contributed to how widely they spread and how deeply they penetrated every corner of the internet.
The most surprising part of the report is the section on China, who actually didn't try to influence the election. "China sought stability in its relationship with the United States and did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk the blowback if caught," it reads.
Basically, the assessment explains that China considered trying to influence the election but ultimately decided that since neither candidate was particularly "pro-China" it simply wasn't worth it.
Other countries mentioned in the report were barely given a paragraph each. The report states that some factions of the Lebanese Hizballah and the Cuban government conducted some low level online influence operations that were generally anti-Trump. It also found that the Nicolas Maduro regime in Venezuela had the "intent, although probably not the capability, to influence the public opinion in the US against the former president."
The takeaway from this report is not that our elections aren't secure — they are — but our minds are not. The division and disinformation warfare we are seeing online isn't just an organic result of the social media age. It is being actively engineered by foreign enemies. America is a democracy that relies on an informed populace and strong institutions to thrive, so the best way to destroy us is to make us mistrust everything.
Our enemies have realized that they could never win a war on American soil, so instead they are attacking us through our screens. They are letting us fight amongst ourselves, fanning the flames, and hoping we will destroy our country in the process. And it's working.
"This Article Is Satire, You F*cking Idiots."
I traveled to upstate New York to interview a man who didn't understand my Internet article was satirical.
"I don't even read the articles," said Mark Chapin*, a 58-year-old electrician, as I sat down with him in his living room. "I just read the headline and say my 'pinion. Ain't nobody can argue with that."
*All names have been changed to protect the identity of subjects in this article.
I initially reached out to Mark in response to a comment he left on Facebook regarding a satirical article that I had written about how silly it is to get upset about some random opinion online. "WRITER IS BIG FIGGOT BABY," wrote Mark, failing to comprehend my brilliantly crafted satire and also hilariously bungling his attempt at a slur. His remark made it abundantly clear that he had not read the article––if he had, he probably wouldn't have immediately gone into the comments to prove my point.
I wanted to enter the headspace of the kind of person who would read a blatantly satirical headline, not bother reading the article, but still leave a nasty comment. Who could possibly be so stupid, I wondered. I decided to find out.
Mark agreed to meet, so I drove roughly two and a half hours from Brooklyn to his home in upstate New York. His Facebook profile picture––an up-the-nostrils shot full of blurry, gray beard scraggles, fell into that "failure to understand basic camera angles" camp that seems to account for so many older people online. His banner photo featured a run-down truck in an overgrown yard, so I was surprised when I pulled up to a relatively well-kept, albeit quaint, house.
Mark's wife Linda brought us tea as we chatted. "I read the first paragraph," she chimed in. "The writer's a real special snowflake." Mark guffawed at the word "snowflake" as if Linda had just said something clever. I don't think she realized that I was the author.
"I think that article was satire," I offered politely.
"I don't think so," said Linda.
"It definitely wasn't," said Mark, which pissed me off, because he obviously didn't even read it.
The Chapins' living room was full of the same kind of gaudy paraphernalia that I always rolled my eyes at whenever I visited my mom's house––mismatched religious iconography and sappy platitudes carved in cursive onto wooden hangings, like "BE GRATEFUL" and "KINDNESS IS CONTAGIOUS." Unlike my mom's house, they also had a deer head mounted on the wall.
"Our son, John," said Linda, handing me a framed picture from his high school graduation. John looked more like his mother, which was probably lucky for him. Linda had smaller, pointed features. Mark's, by contrast, seemed far too big with jutting ears and a bulbous nose. I wondered if the deer's ghost ever judged them while they had sex.
"How long have you two been married?" I asked.
"Going on 35 years," said Mark.
"34," Linda corrected, pecking him on the cheek.
"Happy wife, happy life," laughed Mark. I smiled politely at his dumb boomer phrase, but niceties were over. I hadn't come all this way for pleasantries.
"So Mark, what I'm really trying to grasp here is what exactly goes through your mind before you leave a comment on the Internet like 'Writer is big figgot baby' without even reading the article."
"I don't know what to tell you," said Mark. "I just don't like the PC culture nowadays."
"I get that," I said. "But how do you know the article is 'the PC culture' if you don't even read it?"
"Because of the headline," said Mark.
"But if it's satire, you can't take the headline literally," I said.
"I'm not sure about that," said Mark.
"Well I am sure," I said to Mark, quelling a sudden urge to punch him in the throat. "With satire, you can't take the headline literally."
"If you say so," replied Mark in that knowing tone that boomers use when they think they're right, even in the face of objective evidence to the contrary. Mark's aging brain was slowly dying, so I needed to take a different approach.
"What kind of satire do you like?" I asked Mark.
He seemed to think about it for a minute before answering. His hesitance seemed out of character considering his willingness to knee-jerk react to an Internet headline without even reading the article. "Is South Park satire?"
Technically South Park falls into the broader scope of animated comedy. It utilizes satire but also parody and absurdism, but I knew that would be too much for Mark to comprehend. I could work with South Park. "Sometimes," I said.
"Then South Park is the kind of satire I like," concluded Mark.
"Okay, so you know that in South Park, sometimes they exaggerate or twist an idea to make fun of it, right?" I said.
"Right," said Mark.
"And when they do that on South Park, you know that Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the show, don't mean everything they're saying literally. They're trying to make a bigger point."
"Right," said Mark.
"Right. So when you watch South Park, you don't take everything they say literally. You allow room for nuance, so you can understand the real point that the show is trying to make."
"Yes," said Mark. "They don't like PC."
Fine, whatever. We were making progress.
"Okay. So you understand how satire works in South Park. But South Park isn't the only satirical thing in the world. For example, some Internet articles are satire, and if you take the headline literally without actually reading the article, you might miss the entire point the writer is trying to make. Right?"
"Yes?"
"Which would mean you shouldn't take everything you read on the Internet seriously, because some of it might be satire."
Mark seemed to think about this for a minute, the gears in his tiny boomer pea brain slowly chugging along.
"But then why would the headline say something else?"
"Because it's satire."
At last, Mark shrugged, any trace of light deadened behind his black boomer eyes. "It's just my opinion."
I had learned nothing through my trip. I already knew Mark was a moron before I even left my Brooklyn apartment. But I still failed to understand how…How could this man leave a comment on a clearly satirical article without even reading it and not even understand his own folly? Worst of all, Mark wasn't alone. There were so many Marks, dripping their stale boomer brain goop all over the Internet and failing to understand my satire. What would I need to do to make them understand? Should I scream "THIS IS SATIRE" into their faces until I'm hoarse in the throat? Why do they think their stupid, baseless, uninformed opinion matters? Why? I wanted to drop it. I really did, with all my heart. But I just couldn't let it go.
"You--" I started to speak too loudly, but quickly self-corrected. Mark stared at me with that lifeless boomer glaze, a man almost too stupid to fathom. "Your opinion doesn't matter. It's either satire or it's not. Are you so stupid that you can't understand basic facts? I really think you might be, Mark. Your brain is so fried from media that panders to your stupidity that you take even the most absurd bullsh*t at face value. You're a real f*cking idiot, you know that? A real beast. A troglodyte. A literal prokaryotic being," I said.
Or at least that's what I would have liked to say. Instead, I collected myself, thanked him and his wife for their hospitality, and bid them farewell.
I returned to the Chapin residence late that night with a canister of gasoline and a box of matches. I emptied the canister around the house's periphery and set it on fire. If only he had kept his mouth shut, maybe then he wouldn't need to lose everything he ever loved. I lingered for what seemed like ages, watching the fire grow and grow and grow, just like my rage over Mark's dumb comment on my article that was so f*cking clearly satire. If only Mark had realized how stupid it was to get upset over some random words on the Internet.