THREAD. I agree on the very technical legal point, but not on the nat'l security point. This is going to be a long thread, so bear with me.
The vast majority of CI cases I worked in the FBI involved propaganda and disinformation, which we called "perception management." These are very difficult cases to work, because as @Susan_Hennessey points out, there is not a real legal violation going on. I worked these cases before the proliferation of social media platforms, but the contrast is important. Typically, the case would look something like this: FBI knows that a foreign intelligence service (FIS) has targeted a journalist, the FIS agent (someone working for the FIS), is posing as a "source"," in order to place some reporting favorable to his/her country. The FBI is placed in a difficult position here: Legally the FBI cannot prevent the journalist from publishing whatever s/he wants. Nor does the FBI want to. FBI is bound by oath to uphold the constitution. Which includes First Amendment rights.
On the other hand, the FBI also has a mandate to thwart FIS activity, including clandestine perception management campaigns within the US. In such a case, the FBI may have a "duty to warn": This means letting the journalist know that their source is acting on behalf of a FIS. The idea here is to rely on journalistic integrity: Most journalists know they need to be objective, so this info is important to them. But this has potential costs: Journalists may not understand the bigger picture, and may not take well to being contacted by the FBI. In short, this avenue has LOTS of downsides, + iinternal hurdles and approvals, and is really only done in very high stakes situations.
A more common approach is to approach the FIS agent in attempt to neutralize the op. The Foreign Agent Registration Act is useful here. People who are acting on behalf of a foreign power are legally required to register as a foreign agent with the State Department. The idea here is that they can act on behalf of a foreign power with regard to journalists (and politicians) but need to be transparent. In other words, our open society and democratic freedoms really only work when everyone knows who they are dealing with. In individualized cases, this can be very effective. FARA is a felony. So an agent is most likely to stand down or just register. And, in the instances where they don't, their impact was ultimately limited by the reach of that particular publication, which, in the "old days" was paper circulation, in some finite realm.
Enter the internet and social media. The FBI is now confronted w issues on two fronts. First, on the publication side, they aren't dealing with individuals, but with companies that have an entire platform with a seemingly infinite reach. It's not about "warning" an individual reporter, or outlet. The FBI is dealing with an entire company, that may or may not even have the means to vet the people who are "publishing" there. Nor do the companies necessarily take responsibility for the content they disseminate, the way individual journalists do.
On the "agent" side, FISs no longer need to rely on recruiting individuals to disseminate their propaganda: They have a ready platform! What's more, the FBI cannot identify and approach these individuals, because they are located abroad and operating thru a SM account. This basically leaves the FBI in a vacuum where it can literally do nothing to stop the FIS disinformation op.
The key to this is that THE RUSSIANS UNDERSTAND HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. They understand our freedoms, our Constitution, and the limitations of the FBI...and they use it to their maximum benefit. Of course, they DESPISE these very things. Keep in mind that if the CIA tried to recruit a journalist, Russia would just kill them. If we tried to use a social media platform to spread American values? Russia (or China, or any other closed society) would shut it down. They have found our vulnerability, and they are operating in the constitutional loopholes that our democratic society provides.
Want to fling yourself out of a window? Don't. At least not yet. We can fight this. First, give kudos to @facebook for being taking initiative to look into this AND be transparent about it. TRANSPARENCY IS RUSSIA'S ENEMY. The truth is, unless we are willing ti curtail freedoms or FBI's jurisdiction (which I do NOT think we should do), we will increasinglyrely on partnerships with social media platforms like @facebook and @Twitter to take on journalistic standards as before, but in new way.
Second, we may need to think outside the box with regard to intelligence operations, the way we do with terrorists. We cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility of treating "non state FIS" (like Wikileaks) the same way as FIS. Yes, there are costs and benefits, but those require thoughtful debate, not knee-jerk responses because our freedoms require a balance.
Finally, YOU can also do your part. The Russian approach takes advantage of the "siloing" caused by social media. That is, social media has increasingly created individualized echo chambers -- this makes their disinformation echo 1,000x as loud. It is IMPERATIVE that EVERY AMERICAN make an effort to cross over in meaningful ways with people we disagree with. This is hard. Trust me, I am guilty of this. But this isolation by ideology is what allows disinformation Russians create to succeed. Uniting over SHARED VALUES (freedom, tolerance, inclusiveness, respect) is really what neutralizes Russian propaganda. Which means: if you see someone, anyone -- even from another party, expressing these values in any way -- SUPPORT THEM
Will end here. Basically, what Russia is doing not "illegal" but still wrong and undermining US. But we can turn it back on them.