The Russians, that is.
And the Republicans, in playing on race.
Though the posited goal is different, it fits their pro-Trump activities during the election.
Annoying, of course.
But consider how far the reaction to the Russian meddling has itself been, as Trump defenders and allies have sometimes said, mere and perhaps even hypocritical political propaganda.
And whether and how far tu quoque may be in this matter a valid defense.
(Of course, much the same was said of Watergate, the scandal and its uses.)
Reputedly, the US has meddled in similar clandestine fashion in European politics - the politics of allies, adversaries, and others - for many decades, and did not even slow down with the end of the Cold War.
Our interference in the politics of states born of the breakup of the Soviet Union like Ukraine, aimed against Russia, has been considerable.
Major participants on both sides did the same sort of thing in the USA to affect our politics before and after our entry into both world wars.
Come to that, the US government used such methods alongside much more open ones before and during both world wars and during the Cold War, domestically, to affect Americans and American politics, with directly pro-war and pro-Cold War, pro-ally and anti-enemy propaganda only the tip of the iceberg.
A social media campaign calling itself "Blacktivist" and linked to the Russian government used both Facebook and Twitter in an apparent attempt to amplify racial tensions during the U.S. presidential election, two sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
. . . .
Both Blacktivist accounts, each of which used the handle Blacktivists, regularly shared content intended to stoke outrage.
"Black people should wake up as soon as possible," one post on the Twitter account read.
"Black families are divided and destroyed by mass incarceration and death of black men," another read.
The accounts also posted videos of police violence against African Americans.
. . . .
The Blacktivist accounts provide further evidence that Russian-linked social media accounts saw racial tensions as something to be exploited in order to achieve the broader Russian goal of dividing Americans and creating chaos in U.S. politics during a campaign in which race repeatedly became an issue.
The Russian allusion to free expression and the First Amendment and the apparent normalcy of such international media propaganda are interesting.
Are there relevant international or even global treaties or norms?
And how far do, and how far should, freedom of expression and First Amendment protections extend to foreigners, including foreign governments?
Is not mine a "fake user" account?
Who says I only have, or have had, only one, using only one pseudonymous identity for blogging and commenting?
And though admittedly my pseudonyms have always been within conventions making them recognizable as such, to those aware of the conventions, the practise is widespread on the web of blogging with pseudonyms intentionally not recognizable as such.
