> Instead it seems Russia's aim was to provoke and divide Americans on the internet and, as a result, in the physical world too.
What I really don't understand about the "Russia wants to divide us!" talk is, if this is such a grave concern, why do we give a free pass to identical speech originating from domestic actors? Isn't that also dividing us as a country? BLM, #NotMyPresident, pro/anti-gun rhetoric, etc. -- we have plenty of this kind of stuff floating around already, and in the case of BLM, "the resistance", etc. it's all seen as a good thing, or at worst, "starting a dialogue on X." If spreading these kind of messages online is sowing discord in our country, why aren't we going after domestic organizations as well?
I think the idea is that domestic organizations operated (for lack of a better word) by US Citizens have an end goal of making the country better for themselves. Russia seemingly didn't care about the end goals, just sowing general discord. Their endgame isn't a better United States, it's a divided United States.
> Their endgame isn't a better United States, it's a divided United States.
But again, if we're concerned about a divided United States, why is there no concern over divisive speech generated within the United States? I mean one of the things the Russians did was organize a resistance march. So... Russian-organized resistance march = bad. American-organized resistance march = good (we had one of those too, unless those dastardly Russians were behind it as well). Huh? How does a resisting a legitimately-elected president do anything good for this country? How does that NOT sow discord? That was the whole point! And yet, we don't see a problem with the domestic actors taking these actions.
Disagreements about issues is what politics is all about. I would be more concerned if we all were in lock-step agreement! Ultimately those disagreements and differing views are from a desire to make this country better. Unchecked foreign influence undermines these debates.
The Russian case was deliberate stoking of issues until their advocates could no longer talk civilly and rationally. They played up caricatures of each side to destroy any common ground. It's the deliberate stoking of discord to our people, which bleeds into our politics, and hampers our nation's actions globally. A disrupted US politic gives Russia more room to maneuver globally without rousing our attention. None of these things serve to advance the original issues raised by the people that were targeted.
Even if the discord didn't emerge, the taint of Russian influence diminishes legitimacy and trust in an issue and its advocates by sowing doubt in the movement's motivations. This undermines all kinds of debates and freezes movement on all sorts of issues.
Lets put concrete into an abstract idea.
Putting aside everything else about Trump, during the campaign Trump insisted "Wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?" Was this a legitimate call for undoing decades of demonization that is a product of the Cold War? Or does he want to score lucrative quid-pro-quo deals and access to Putin? The campaign meetings with Russian contacts doesn't inspire benefit of the doubt.
Finally all other things being equal, the protesters here have skin in the game. Foreign influencers, outside of what they want to influence, do not. Foreign powers can cause all kinds of harm while spared the consequences. Us locals have to live with those consequences.
Intent matters? Or at least it used to, as it tempered the debate and kept things civil. Now there is functionally no difference between one honest side of the debate and a Russian troll, so you're point seems valid.
What I really don't understand about the "Russia wants to divide us!" talk is, if this is such a grave concern, why do we give a free pass to identical speech originating from domestic actors? Isn't that also dividing us as a country? BLM, #NotMyPresident, pro/anti-gun rhetoric, etc. -- we have plenty of this kind of stuff floating around already, and in the case of BLM, "the resistance", etc. it's all seen as a good thing, or at worst, "starting a dialogue on X." If spreading these kind of messages online is sowing discord in our country, why aren't we going after domestic organizations as well?