system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Russian interference in an American election is really not such a big deal. Governments and foreign citizens interfere in other country's elections all the time.

I'm hoping this can stay relatively non-partisan. I don't understand why the Russia story is such a huge deal. We live in an increasingly global world and online people from other countries can easily talk to each other and influence each other's political views.


In recent history the Obama administration campaigned against the Brexit referendum and campaigned strongly against the re-election of Netanyahu in Israel. The Trump administration campaigned for Le Pen in France and I'm pretty sure the French aren't outraged about an American president trying to interfere in their election.


Going back even further in history the American government did a lot worse than just posting propaganda on social media. The Reagan administration had secret assassins infiltrating communist countries and installing leaders that were politically favorable to the U.S.


Is it a crime if I, a random American, got interested in, say, British politics and started posting persuasive messages on social media about my position on a British election issue? Would I be "attacking a British election" if I was doing that and got to be somewhat influential on social media?


I don't understand how the Russian interference story is much different than these kind of situations. How is this more significant?
gpt
One obvious difference you are ignoring is that all of the efforts you are talking about are *public*. Some people might see it as crass or overstepping his bounds, but Obama can perfectly legitimately tell Britain "if you do X, we will respond by doing Y"; that's fundamentally what diplomacy is.

The Russian interference campaign, per the indictment, was not Russia openly claiming to support Trump, but utilizing fake and/or stolen identities and fake and/or stolen funds to pose as Americans in order to appear more legitimate. That is what makes the acts wrong (and specifically illegal for a number of reasons listed in the indictment; it's only 37 pages, so I'd encourage you to read it).

As an additional point, the Russian interference in the election was not solely aimed at boosting Trump (though it was partially). It also promoted Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, intentionally acted to suppress minority turnout, and post-election organized a few anti-Trump rallies. This shows that it was at least partially about intentionally sowing dissent in America, which is a much more hostile motivation than any of the situations you've mentioned.

E: Small aside, but there's zero chance to keep an incredibly politicized event from being non-partisan.

E2: "America did worse" is irrelevant, since your point is "it's not such a big deal." The obvious response is "nobody is saying America was benevolent in its actions."