Well, if there is indeed no evidence of decisive intervention from Russia, then it’s hardly a straw man - rather, the argument stands, whether put forward by me or by Greenwald.
Noam Chomsky seems to think along similar lines:
I haven’t, as it happens, seen that opinion (of completely absolving Clinton and the DNC) on this site. I guess we all agree that the “pied piper” strategy was about as stupid and irresponsible as it gets.
Cory Doctorow has often, on this site, pointed out that operations like Cambridge Analytica are not, in fact, smooth operators or data wizards selling election victories to prospective buyers - rather, they are hacks and snake oil salesmen masquerading as such operators in the hopes of making a buck. In which they have apparently succeeded. But this does not mean that the snake oil they’ve been peddling actually works very well.
This is not, however, to completely discard the power of “influence” campaigns. I believe that the xenophobic right in this country (Denmark) largely rose to their current prominence due to a small group of people (20-25) incessantly writing “letters to the editor” and creating the illusion of a much greater movement. So things can certainly be achieved. I don’t really, though, believe these mechanisms are well enough understood for reliable manipulation by either Russia, Cambridge Analytica or other operators.
AND such accusations may all too easily be abused to smear opponents. Exhibit A:
(and a response to it)
