Hacker News

points by abc42 4 days ago | 0 comments

Interesting how pro-democracy wave after wave strike the shore as Russia's resources dwindle. Perhaps Russia is/was the only thing still keeping those monsters up?

[–] watwut 4 days ago

No not the only one. Musk, Thiel, Vance are also working hard and spending tons of money on that.

[–] abc42 4 days ago

They are children compared to Putin in the art of geopolitical manipulation. If he didn't wield his skills so malignantly, I'd be impressed.

[–] DrScientist 4 days ago

What's the evidence for Russian involvement in the Brazil election?

As far as I can see it's pretty thin. US interence on the other hand has been open.

https://thebostonreport.com/2026/10/11/russia-brazil-electio...

[–] abc42 3 days ago

Oh, in this particular case they have no need, as both candidates are friendly to Russia.

[–] DrScientist 3 days ago

This analysis suggests that the Bolsonaro camp is potentially split - particuarly around BRICS versus Washington alignment.

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/news/russian-and-brazilian-expe...

[–] 0dayz 4 days ago

Indeed Russia has had over 20 years of covert operations and generally different philosophy of how to influence a country to your will than the Americans.

[–] raxxorraxor 4 days ago

I think this framing is pretty much disinformation itself. Sure, Russia tries to influence elections like every other country does as well, democracies or not.

Currently we see such claims resurfacing on topics like Brexit or other contemporary issues. If you look at the hard data of visibility on the attempts of Russia, they are in a similar spot as their economy. Doing decently poorly.

If any domestic news article or politician points their fingers at Russia, it is probably to distract from something else. Sure, if you are situated in Ukraine, the story is different. The latter does have to swallow the results of the moronic foreign policy of quite a few western nations for that matter and it would be served well if a bit of sensible reflection would be put on the table.

[–] abc42 3 days ago

>I think this framing is pretty much disinformation itself.

Russian troll factories etc are a documented fact, not an opinion. It goes way beyond just "influencing elections".

[–] brazukadev 3 days ago

US troll factories are just called social media. That's the one that tried to influence the Brazilian election in favor of the BolsoJr

[–] raxxorraxor 2 days ago

Yes, many countries have them in some form or another. Their existence is not proof of anything.

In fact there is no proof about any impact. As someone who is online too much already, it is highly doubtful the impact is significant and there are more studies pointing to the opposite. High school teens to more impressive online raids if you say you dislike k-pop. Some claim there is a background effect, but anyway...

Troll farms have an interest to overstate their impact. Are you a troll? Easy accusation, isn't it?

Turns out people that voted incorrectly on issues like Brexit where quite focused on Brexit as a multi-faceted political issue. For example they might have objected to be called victims of Russian propaganda. Which is a statement on the level of tea leaf reading.

[–] SanjayMehta 4 days ago

Lula was the incumbent. What does Russia have to do with anything?

Bolsanaro (the fellow in jail/house arrest) is the one favoured by Trump.

[–] culi 3 days ago

That's a mind-boggling viewpoint when the US/Trump heavily interfered to prop up Bolsonaro. US has also been propping up dictators throughout SA, especially since trump's reelection

[–] severino 4 days ago

Given that Bolsonaro would reduce engagement with BRICS and de-dollarization, I guess it was Lula the candidate favored by Putin.

[–] abc42 4 days ago

That's an interesting angle. Is that a fact, though? Far-right has usually been in bed with Putin.

[–] culi 3 days ago

Russia occupies a weird area where they have a natural affinity with third worldists and anti-imperialists. Historically a lot of Russian propaganda has targeted the western left (see Russia Today which often looks straight up progressive) but they're clearly also targeting the far right

[–] severino 3 days ago

Well, at least I could read that about Bolsonaro, that's for sure. Being hardline Trump supporters, Bolsonaros are not very fond of things like being in BRICS or making business with China.

I guess Putin doesn't really care whether you are red or blue, but who do you align with, or who do you oppose.

[–] nicce 4 days ago

It is not even Russia in this case. Just look what Meta and Trump and friends have been doing

[–] tim333 4 days ago

I feel the whole Putin/Trump/Bolsonaro/Netanyahu fascist like schtick is wearing a bit thin with voters. Making <country> great again is running into military quagmires.

[–] vintermann 4 days ago

Why is it always Russia?

This is into "not even wrong" territory. Brazil has a fairly close relationship with Russia, they're a fellow founding BRICS member - and Lula was president when it was formed. What would Putin get from having US (Trump) ally Bolsonaro Jr. over him?

And while it's great that the murder-happy fascist didn't win, it's not exactly a great win for democracy. It's just stopping the bleeding. Besides the obvious problem of being allied with Russia and China, Brazil has a worrying "anti fake news" law. Like elsewhere, it seems the slightly-better guys aren't eager to roll back power grabs that now benefit themselves.

[–] lopis 4 days ago

> Brazil has a worrying "anti fake news" law

Really? I couldn't tell. In the last debate alone, the main TV network conceded to Flavio's request to not use live fact checking systems on TV. Turns out 75% of his statements were not true. He's facing no consequences for that, nor is the network for hosting and broadcasting his fake facts.

[–] raxxorraxor 4 days ago

Fact checking systems often lack context and self-correction mechanisms, suffer from selection bias and numerous other problems that doesn't elevate them above other forms of media. Especially media that doesn't claim to be an authoritative source.

You probably could have constructed a fact checker that would have said that 75% is true, the completely other way around. For most truths or facts that is entirely possible without any contradiction if you change perspective. This basic media literacy isn't optional and it cannot be outsourced.

[–] lopis 4 days ago

That's true, and indeed the fact checking they posted online sometimes lacked nuance. But they actually tried to tackle that exact problem by labeling several statements as "not quite right", and all facts had a description, it was not black and white. I also understand that in live TV that nuance would be lost. But some statements were 100% straight out lies. Those could be even flagged by the debate moderator.

[–] vintermann 4 days ago

Such laws always work better for one side than the other, it's always selective about which facts get checked and which false news get suppressed. I don't know about how trusted that media network is in Brazil, but from all we've seen from other countries, authoritative fact checking from old information monopolies just fan the flames. It wouldn't surprise me if conceding to the request was the best they could do in the situation.

[–] abc42 4 days ago

>Why is it always Russia?

Why indeed.

[–] stop50 4 days ago

If we look at fascists taking power in south america, then the us is an better suspect, since they already did this before.