R3qn65's recent activity

  1. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Okay, got it. That’s helpful, thanks. I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Part of the misunderstanding is my fault - I started talking in very universalist terms when what I really...

    Okay, got it. That’s helpful, thanks.

    I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Part of the misunderstanding is my fault - I started talking in very universalist terms when what I really meant was something closer to “in a situation like 2026 America….”. For example,

    If 90% of the US [as a low priority] wanted "less money in politics" and party A unilaterally enacted it [for personal gain] that seems fine to me.

    I would generally agree with this. I would even generally agree if we’re talking about abolishing the electoral college specifically. It’s more of a concern to me when we’re talking about a ~60% majority in favor of doing something, which is about the proportion of Americans who want to abolish the electoral college, per some data LukeZaz shared earlier. That’s much, much farther from a peoples’ mandate.

    Now, I wouldn’t want this rule (it’s fine as long as 90% of the population wants it) to be universal either. I do think there’s some merit in having to collaborate with the opposition, even when the will of the people is overwhelmingly in favor. This is kind of a trite example, but Israel’s war against Gaza was overwhelmingly popular among Israelis (at first, anyway); things might have gone very differently if the Knesset/Netanyahu had been forced to incorporate the Arab parties into their decisionmaking nevertheless. Similarly, examples abound of authoritarian parties who gradually accrue more power because they don’t need the buy-in of the liberal minority. (This is one of the major strengths of America’s state-based system for amending the constitution over a pure parliamentary system).

    On the other hand, of course, some 10% or whatever of the population will always oppose things that are clearly moral good (e.g. legal gay civil partnerships), so you can’t be held hostage by that segment or you’ll never accomplish anything. You raised that point earlier. This is basically how I arrive at the existing system for constitutional change (2/3rds congress, 3/4ths states) being a pretty good bar. It’s extremely difficult, no doubt, but the fact that there are 27 amendments shows that it’s eminently possible to do, and it’s not “literally everyone,” which means you’re less likely to be held hostage by spoilers.

    I was curious if you felt anything changed if the dislike of the NPVIC was from those that didn't respect rule of law or democracy.

    Not really. I apply the same heuristic, of course — “wow, how convenient that all your screeching about states’ rights happens to align with keeping the system that benefits you” but I generally remain convinced that changing the way people get into power is not something to be done lightly or unilaterally. If it was 90% of the population and republicans just didn’t like it, sure. I can get there. But that’s very, very far from where we’re at.

  2. Comment on AI buildout hits snag as Google and Microsoft hold capex forecasts in ~tech

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    I really have no issues at all with the idea that the AI market is a bubble. I think we differ on the fundamental legitimacy of the technology, but I’ll freely admit that at least some of the...

    I really have no issues at all with the idea that the AI market is a bubble. I think we differ on the fundamental legitimacy of the technology, but I’ll freely admit that at least some of the numbers are due to hype.

    Really, what we’ve sparred over is whether it’s all fraud in the style of Enron.

    3 votes

  3. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Hey, I am sorry but I’m having a really difficult time parsing some of what you’ve written here. For example, I understand this In isolation but I’m really struggling to connect it to the...

    Hey, I am sorry but I’m having a really difficult time parsing some of what you’ve written here. For example, I understand this

    The fact that you vote for the limited options of one of party because they align on you on your perception of the economy or single-issues like guns or abortions does not mean they represent your views on how democracy is best done. Why, if you had access to reasonable polling about this issue, would you ever defer to the party's very self-interested preferences?

    In isolation but I’m really struggling to connect it to the conversation we’re having. More broadly there are so many ideas and questions and sort of… accusations in here that I’m not sure how to respond. I’m happy to discuss but could we focus on one thing at a time?

    While I sometimes disagree with you (e.g., Biden laptop) I appreciate that you make that effort as well, especially since that isn't always easy on Tildes. But I gotta say the good faith, at least with anyone in MAGA that isn't completely checked out of news, has pretty much eroded, post Trump.

    Uh… to be clear, I generally vote democrat, with limited exceptions for local races. I am not MAGA.

    1 vote

  4. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Are you serious? I’m literally responding to the question “which matters more, a better world or fair play?” lol.

    At first you talked about it being a "bad political move", then about mattering whether someone stood to benefit from it (of which I'm also curious... if it stands to benefit the average person, but neither party wishes to do it... is that also a bad thing which shouldn't be pushed for?), and now you're talking about morality and proselytizing.

    Are you serious? I’m literally responding to the question “which matters more, a better world or fair play?”

    I'm not here to tell you what's right and what's wrong here

    lol.

    3 votes

  5. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Thanks for looking. Pretty much as expected, I think.

    Thanks for looking. Pretty much as expected, I think.

  6. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    In short, I think we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that goes “we need to do X change for moral reasons, and I have it in my power to take the first step in that direction, but if I do...

    Unless I misunderstand (very likely atm), you're stating why it is at least in the game theory sense an impossibility to do this on a per-state level, while using the plausibility of that same action to critique wanting it done at a national level. Doing this on a state level doesn't "make America more democratic"-- it actively punishes the side wanting it, making it less democratic until the impossible threshold is met.

    In short, I think we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that goes “we need to do X change for moral reasons, and I have it in my power to take the first step in that direction, but if I do that the other guy will win, so I can’t.” I don’t disagree that a national change is more plausible for game-theoretic reasons.

    The decision isn't unilateral is any Republican supports it, unless you only consider it at the party level. If you don't you have to get into what percent of Republican support do you consider sufficient.

    I genuinely think the party level is actually pretty good for something like this. That’s the whole reason we have elected representatives, after all - to represent the will of the people as a whole instead of the will of every individual person. If the two parties can figure out some way to make this work, I don’t think it’s objectionable if some random republican doesn’t like it.

    Why? It's unilateral and gives a political benefit to them. What is the difference between electoral changes and something like unilateral tax cuts set to explode on the next party and gain significant donor support?

    I think there’s an enormous difference between the two. Electoral changes dictate who gets into power and how. There’s little else as important as that; that’s what wars are fought over. It’s like the republicans gerrymandering - clearly much worse than just passing some tax cut, right? To preempt your next question about “when is a majority big enough,” I think the constitution is more or less spot on. If two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of states agreed to abolish the electoral college, I think that’s a large enough supermajority to forestall concerns about quashing the adversary party.

    Also not sure why you aren't considering where, like 2024, the unilateral change that is prosocial doesn't end up benefiting the Democrats, or at least not in perpetuity? Possibly due to the same sort of blowback you anticipate.

    I really don’t think the bar needs to be “benefits democrats every single time” for me to reasonably say that it advantages them.

    2 votes

  7. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Yes, as I noted above. Sorry, I really don’t understand what you mean here at all. If you mean “why are you talking about the republican party when some republicans probably don’t like the...

    How your suggestion plays out is that you end up penalizing "good" actors by essentially watering down their votes on the national level. Sure, they would better represent their constituents--which would happen in that case of the NPVIC-- but if all the supporting blue states switched to being proportional it would always lead to a GOP president, with no real incentive for states already willingly rigging things in their favor to also switch.

    Yes, as I noted above.

    And why would you partition around parties instead of their constituents? Some on the left wouldn't want it, and some on the right would. Why is what the party wants the relevant bit?

    Sorry, I really don’t understand what you mean here at all. If you mean “why are you talking about the republican party when some republicans probably don’t like the electoral college,” I suppose that’s fair, I was using the parties as shorthand. I suspect that democrats overwhelmingly don’t like the electoral college and republicans overwhelmingly like it, but I haven’t looked for actual data on that.

    Why choose the categorical imperative instead of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance or other frameworks?

    For clarity, I mean a categorical imperative. As in, I told NaraVara that I wasn’t trying to establish a rule that must be followed at all costs.

    If M4A was passed with a supermajority would that be unethical, as long as it incidentally led to a strong left party?

    No?

    2 votes

  8. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    I mean at this point we’re just debating deontological vs. consequentialist ethics. I’m not going to take a universal position on that, but generally yes, I think fair play matters more. If you...

    Which matters more, a better world, or fair play?

    I mean at this point we’re just debating deontological vs. consequentialist ethics. I’m not going to take a universal position on that, but generally yes, I think fair play matters more.

    Let's say you'd be completely right about Democratic politicians doing this solely for selfish reasons (which many certainly would be). In that case... so what?

    If you could sum up my ethical instincts in a sentence, it’d be “beware people trying to convince you that the thing that happens to benefit them is a moral imperative.” If you could somehow consult a crystal ball and tell me that doing X thing would lead to a better world, no caveats, then of course I would prefer to do that. But in the context where I don’t think we can really be sure (or agree on) what a better world is, our safer bet is to try to shoot for fair play instead.

    I’m talking more broadly, here, you understand, not about the electoral college specifically anymore.

    6 votes

  9. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Well, yes, I don’t disagree with any of this. My point was more that it’s not a straight line from “Trump is insane” to “abolishing the EC would’ve prevented Trump” if we’re talking about selling...

    Well, yes, I don’t disagree with any of this. My point was more that it’s not a straight line from “Trump is insane” to “abolishing the EC would’ve prevented Trump” if we’re talking about selling it to the American public (which we were).

    3 votes

  10. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Well, I can’t argue with that, but aren’t you glad I prepared you for the question?

    By either definition Rutherford B. Hayes is only relevant as an answer in a bar trivia question for NERDS.

    Well, I can’t argue with that, but aren’t you glad I prepared you for the question?

    7 votes

  11. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    I’m going to take some justified flak for this from NaraVara, because I just said I wasn’t arguing a categorical imperative. But your question made me reflect on whether I would be fine with the...

    I’m going to take some justified flak for this from NaraVara, because I just said I wasn’t arguing a categorical imperative. But your question made me reflect on whether I would be fine with the Democratic party ever unilaterally abolishing the college. On reflection I think unilaterally abolishing the electoral college as the party which would benefit most from said abolishment is universally bad. That is to say that if in 40 years it’s the democrats who win elections via the EC despite losing the popular vote, I would oppose republicans trying to get rid of the college. I get that the EC is a bad system, but it’s the system in place and changing the way the US president is elected is not something to be done lightly or unilaterally. I think it’s just too fraught - politically, yes, but also ethically - for any dominant party to change the way elections are run without consent from the other party.

    The main reason I feel this way is that there’s not currently an actual rule saying that states have to follow the winner-take-all system. That’s the primary problem with the electoral college, right? It means battleground states are the most important by far and nobody campaigns in Oklahoma because all of their EC votes are going red no matter what. The thing is that states could currently choose, today, to distribute their electoral votes according to how each house district voted. Nebraska and Maine already do this, and it solves like 90% or more of the problems with the EC system.

    The reason most states don’t do this is that it’s pure downside for the party in charge. California is a broadly democratic state with republican congresspeople. If they shifted to a fair electoral college system they would be giving EC votes to republican candidates and the democrats in control don’t want that. The same was true on the other side of the aisle in, say, Texas (until a few days ago, of course). That’s whatever - I get the political motivations - but I raise it because it supports, I think, my argument that this is not a polyannaish move by idealistic Democrats seizing a chance to make America more democratic.

    If the primary motivation was democracy, there’s nothing stopping them from making that change today. It has a lot more to do with power. And even though I vote democratic, I think that’s bad.

    5 votes

  12. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    Imagine a side-eye emoji here. This has got to be the least charitable interpretation of what I’m trying to say. I’m arguing from a realpolitik perspective, not as a categorical imperative. I will...

    So you can only reform broken aspects of the political system if the people who benefit from it being broken go along with it? You must understand how silly this sounds.

    Imagine a side-eye emoji here. This has got to be the least charitable interpretation of what I’m trying to say. I’m arguing from a realpolitik perspective, not as a categorical imperative.

    That those electors' choices are locked into whoever got the majority of the aggregated vote of their state is made-up bullshit.

    I will note that this is not actually a rule. Not at a country-wide level, anyway. States currently choose individually how their electoral college distribution works. Maine and Nebraska use different systems whereby they give some EC votes to the winner of the popular vote (in their state) and then distribute the rest based on who won each district. There’s no extant rule that everyone has to use the winner-take-all method that 48 states are currently using. I’m not really sure where I was going with that other than to note that technically the compact would be imposing more rules on the states than currently exist.

    The idea of the EC deviating from the popular vote was regarded as a potentially weird thing that could theoretically happen for most of the modern era,

    The first time a president won on the electoral college while losing the popular vote was Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876.

    part of the reason the country is so divided is BECAUSE the EC skews the game theory of running national campaigns towards focusing on turning out your base in purple states instead of getting the 20% minority party vote in a state to 23%.

    Yes, I agree with this.

    4 votes

  13. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    I can see the merits of this argument - though I’d note that Trump won the popular vote in 2024, so a different system would not have prevented his presidency - but I still think it would do more...

    A different framing is that there may never be a better time for this. Trump is a lightning rod, with the most open corruption and incompetence in history. He may be splitting the party as some begin to see him as politically toxic and weak, and as he is incapable of releasing power or resigning for the good of the GOP. In the face of a public mandate Trump is entertaining nukes and vetoing everything... and if that doesn't make the case for how important it is for the increasingly expansive powers of the POTUS to be democraticly chosen and beholden, nothing will.

    I can see the merits of this argument - though I’d note that Trump won the popular vote in 2024, so a different system would not have prevented his presidency - but I still think it would do more harm than good for the democrats to unilaterally (effectively) force a new system to supersede the electoral college.

    2 votes

  14. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    If the republicans and democrats jointly agreed to get rid of the EC, that would be great. I’m opposing getting rid of it now, in this way, because to push for it would be a terrible idea...

    If the republicans and democrats jointly agreed to get rid of the EC, that would be great. I’m opposing getting rid of it now, in this way, because to push for it would be a terrible idea politically.

    Also the way the EC works isn't in the Constitution.

    I suppose that’s technically true, but article II refers to “electors” and per the US federal archives, the EC was established by the constitution. I will concede that the specific mechanisms are not described in the constitution.

    In fact, most people actually think the President is elected by a popular vote

    Come on. The EC is massively important every election, especially when republicans win via the college despite losing the popular vote. Most people don’t think the president is elected by a popular vote. That really doesn’t matter for your point at all, so, you know, whatever, but this is a bit of a reach.

    6 votes

  15. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    It is more democratic in the very narrow sense of the word, yes, but I don’t think that implies as much as one might think. It would be transparently more democratic in the same sense for us to...

    It is more democratic in the very narrow sense of the word, yes, but I don’t think that implies as much as one might think. It would be transparently more democratic in the same sense for us to abolish the legislative branch of government entirely and vote directly on every bill and budget. We don’t do that because despite being more democratic, it would also be a terrible idea.

    In the same way, I don’t find “it’s more democratic!” - though true! - a convincing argument for doing away with the electoral college.To be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to getting rid of the electoral college. But the big-D Democratic motivation to get rid of it is about winning elections, not about promoting small-d democracy.

    I want Democrats to win more elections - but not like that.

    4 votes

  16. Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society

    R3qn65
    Link
    Politically, this would be a terrible idea. The democrats were just elected in a blue wave in large part by winning support from disaffected republicans and independents, right? If the first thing...

    Politically, this would be a terrible idea. The democrats were just elected in a blue wave in large part by winning support from disaffected republicans and independents, right? If the first thing they do with that mandate is to try to adopt a new voting system which transparently advantages them, they will lose that goodwill and more. In the eyes of much of the electorate they’ll be proving Trump et al. right when they claim that democrats are trying to destroy America or whatever.

    That’s doubly true if the Democrats do it through a quasilegal process that most people will struggle to understand instead of via a constitutional amendment.

    5 votes

  17. Comment on Why parents love a school with bogus numbers in ~life

    R3qn65
    Link
    I love The Argument. And though I don’t think I would/will send my kids to an Alpha school, I’m glad it exists. As Piper writes near the end of this piece, any criticism of Alpha needs to grapple...

    I love The Argument. And though I don’t think I would/will send my kids to an Alpha school, I’m glad it exists. As Piper writes near the end of this piece, any criticism of Alpha needs to grapple with the fact that public schools are generally equally or more flawed. Piper points out that the Alpha charter school in Arizona isn’t working the same way the remainder of the campuses claim to be. I think that’s probably true - but I think it’s also likely true that Alpha’s methods will allow the brighter* students at that school to get a better education than they otherwise would.

    Not too long ago on tildes we discussed Nikole Hannah-Jones’ NYT article about her daughter’s abysmal education at a poor majority-black school in New York. Unquestionably her daughter - who by all accounts is both bright and motivated - would have learned more at an Alpha charter school, even with the same student population, than she did at PS307. There’s just no way, in Alpha’s system, that this would’ve happened:

    Algebra, she thought, was the one exception — this was a subject she believed she knew… After an assessment, the center’s director called me in and told me that Najya knew very little algebra and had huge gaps in many of the building blocks of math that she should have learned in elementary school, like mastery of long division and fractions.

    It wouldn’t have happened for two reasons. First, as Piper writes, a slavish focus on standardized testing is bad, but it’s better than the alternative: Najya, from the above, had received straight As in school but failed the standardized math test. Her school didn’t care; Alpha would have. And second, because all of the content, in the Alpha system, is tailored to the students. Clearly Najya had the capacity to learn Algebra - with extensive tutoring, she caught up and excelled. She didn’t know it because it wasn’t actually being taught at her school(s). But Alpha’s entire model is tailoring content to each kid specifically, which is why they’re so obsessed with their apps - so she would’ve gotten there when she performed well enough on the preceding subjects.

    So overall, I’m pretty into it. Not because I think Alpha is the best education for bright kids — I think Piper’s right that it’s mostly for bright kids who want to get school out of the way to do something else, and that’s not my vibe. I’m into it because I think the principles Alpha uses are more likely to give bright kids in bad schools the chance to actually learn than what we’re doing now.

    * I’m using “brighter” here very loosely. I am entirely aware that most poor students are desperately disadvantaged by the circumstances of their early childhood and their home lives and that it’s not generally a question of raw intelligence. “Brighter” is simply an easier shorthand than something like “students with more capacity to ultimately excel” or similar.

    6 votes

  18. Comment on Choosing hosting and DNS outside US and EU jurisdictions, hedging against repression in ~tech

    R3qn65
    Link Parent
    I would generally agree. My assumption is that Dogru is not being honest when he implies that that's the only connection. To your above point -- I agree completely, but I take it the other way. We...

    I don't think someone having worked with Russian state media a long time ago is sufficient grounds for sanctioning them. In light of this I find the by now common EU propaganda the streets proclaiming 'free speech' and 'freedom of the press' pathetic.

    I would generally agree. My assumption is that Dogru is not being honest when he implies that that's the only connection. To your above point --

    The European country in which I reside has had a lot of well-known athletes hosting shows on Russia Today (RT). I have yet to hear of any of them being sanctioned. So it can't be the economic connection alone.

    I agree completely, but I take it the other way. We also see legions of pro-palestinian activists also not sanctioned -- so that can't be it either. What would make sense is if Dogru has a secret financial relationship with Russian state media, which happens to be exactly what the EU is claiming.

    6 votes

  19. Comment on Choosing hosting and DNS outside US and EU jurisdictions, hedging against repression in ~tech

    R3qn65
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    This is the common Russian view (the "broken promise" of the Cold War) but it's more complicated than that. In short, the Russians claim that there was a verbal promise that NATO would not expand...

    It is my understanding that the end of the cold war was brought about by the agreement that NATO would not expand further eastward.

    This is the common Russian view (the "broken promise" of the Cold War) but it's more complicated than that. In short, the Russians claim that there was a verbal promise that NATO would not expand but nothing to that regard ever appeared in the actual written treaties that everyone signed. Those are the facts, everything else is hearsay.

    CIA played a large part in the orange revolution in Ukraine, bringing Zelenskyy to power.
    https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/

    Your link here does not support this claim at all. It's a common Russian talking point, but there's no evidence of this -- at least not in this link.

    Empires for good reason demand a buffer-zone of non-aligned countries around them, and the Russians, also for good reason saw it as belligerent of NATO to keep expanding east. US ambassador to Russia warned of exactly this in diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks:
    https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

    Note that the cable you cite doesn't make any recommendations on whether or not expanding NATO is a good idea, it purely says "the Russians won't like this." Specifically that the Russians say they will have to "reevaluate their whole relationship with Ukraine" if Ukraine were invited to NATO. What they ended up doing, obviously, is a bit different (and Ukraine was never invited to NATO!)

    it is hard to imagine a situation where the US would emphasize strongly the sovereign right of say, Mexico or Canada, to enter into a military alliance with China or Russia. Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. So what are the rules here exactly? The rules are great power politics, and have been for a long time.

    The cuban missile crisis is quite different -- we're talking about nukes actually on Cuba versus the perception that one day, if all members unanimously consent, Ukraine might be invited to join a defensive-only alliance -- but to a certain extent, agreed that yes, great power politics are at play here.

    But none of that changes the facts: on one hand, you have NATO building diplomatic ties and potentially inviting Ukraine to join their defensive alliance at some unspecified point in the future. On the other, you have Russia launching a land invasion and annexing Ukranian territory.

    It's pretty obvious who's the bigger aggressor here.

    Even if we conclude, after all this, that Russia was compelled to invade, then we must also conclude that Russia fell into the most obvious trap of all time and has nobody to blame but itself.

    8 votes

  20. Comment on Choosing hosting and DNS outside US and EU jurisdictions, hedging against repression in ~tech

    R3qn65
    (edited )
    Link
    Alright. Here's the actual EU sanctions citation on Dogru. It's not for criticizing genocide. It's for (allegedly) being deeply linked to Russian state-owned propaganda. It may well be that...

    Alright. Here's the actual EU sanctions citation on Dogru. It's not for criticizing genocide. It's for (allegedly) being deeply linked to Russian state-owned propaganda.

    It may well be that there's a legitimate argument against sanctioning a journalist who happens to be backed by Russian state media, but it's important to discuss the full context of why Dogru is being sanctioned by the EU.

    Hüseyin Doğru is the founder and representative of AFA Medya A.Ş. which is a media company based in Istanbul. AFA Medya A.Ş. operates “RED”, which comprises a number of media platforms, and which has close financial and organisational connections with Russian state propaganda entities and actors, and shares deep structural ties, including interlinkages between, and rotation of, individual personnel with Russian state media organisations.

    RED has used its media platforms – often publishing under “redstreamnet” or “thered.stream” – to systematically spread false information on politically controversial subjects with the intent of creating ethnic, political and religious discord amongst its predominantly German target audience, including by disseminating the narratives of radical Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas.

    During a violent occupation of a German university by anti-Israel rioters, RED personnel coordinated with the occupiers to disseminate images of their vandalism – which included the use of Hamas symbols – through their online channels, thus providing them with an exclusive media platform, facilitating the violent nature of the protest.

    Through AFA Medya, Hüseyin Doğru thus supports actions by the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability and security in the Union and in one or several of its Member States, including by indirectly supporting and facilitating violent demonstrations and engaging in coordinated information manipulation.

    13 votes