Russians Again Targeting Americans With Disinformation, Facebook and Twitter Say (nytimes.com) 249
The Russian group that interfered in the 2016 presidential election is at it again, using a network of fake accounts and a website set up to look like a left-wing news site, Facebook and Twitter said on Tuesday. From a report: The disinformation campaign by the Kremlin-backed group, known as the Internet Research Agency, is the first public evidence that the agency is trying to repeat its efforts from four years ago and push voters away from the Democratic presidential candidate, Joseph R. Biden Jr., to help President Trump. Intelligence agencies have warned for months that Russia and other countries were actively trying to disrupt the November election, and that Russian intelligence agencies were feeding conspiracy theories designed to alienate Americans by laundering them through fringe sites and social media. Now Facebook and Twitter are offering evidence of this meddling, even as the White House in recent weeks has sought to more tightly control the flow of information about foreign threats to November's election and downplay Russian interference. The Trump administration's top intelligence official as recently as Sunday has tried to suggest that China is a graver risk than Moscow. Facebook and Twitter, which were slow to react to wide-ranging disinformation campaigns on their services in 2016 and continue to face criticism -- even from their own employees -- that they are not doing enough to confront the issue, said they were warned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the Russian effort.
May as well save their money (Score:4, Insightful)
With the White House parroting conspiracy theory nonsense as fact with no due diligence whatsoever, who needs to waste money on an active disinformation campaign?
DHS knew, but didn't say anything (Score:5, Insightful)
According to a report from ABC [go.com], a report was supposed to be sent out to law enforcement agencies around the country on July 9th. However, DHS Chief of Staff John Gountanis stopped the bulletin from being sent out.
"Please hold on sending this one out until you have a chance to speak to [acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf]," Gountanis wrote, ABC News reported.
In other words, for two months the government agency tasked with keeping this country "secure" has been sitting on information which would help protect this country because it would benefit the con artist. It should also be noted, some of the whinings the con artist uses when talking about Biden are pulled directly from this misinformation.
Just like the con artist used information from Russia in 2016, the same country he refuses to say a single bad word about or condemn any of its jets deliberately buzzing our planes in international air space, or condemn Russia's deliberate bombing of hospitals in Syria, or the continued Russian poisoning of opposition figures such as Nalvany or the murder of Boris Nemtsov who was going to release a damning report on Putin's corruption.
It's almost as if the con artist is working at the behest of a foreign government to undermine this country, and Republicans are perfectly fine with it.
"Con artist"? (Score:5, Funny)
"Con artist" is a bit much. I mean there is no trace of artistry there, he just spews nonsense all the time, which is why I am pessimistic about the general public. I mean, if he was running an elaborate con, that would be something, but, alas, no, every time he talks you have to be an idiot if you can't tell he has serious mental disorders going...
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear, and well modded, too. Found it on the search for Funny.
With regards to Trump's special trip to Walter Reid, as soon as I heard they had notified Pence I was pretty sure he'd had a stroke and they were evaluating whether or not any surgical intervention was required. Minor strokes are actually fairly "normal" at Trump's age, but that one must have been unusually severe.
(I'm pretty sure Biden is taking better care of his blood pressure than Trump is. I've finally decided on my personal tactics for
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has verifiable information Russia is working to disrupt the upcoming election via misinformation, and deliberately withheld this information.
Well, when (and if) it has actually been verified, feel free to let us know.
Re: (Score:3)
"the same country he refuses to say a single bad word about or condemn" ...shows just in 2017-2018-2019 there were more than FIFTY policy actions taken against Russia including a cascade of sanctions, denunciations, and official condemnations.
Refuses to admit a single bad word, you say?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]
Let's compare and contrast with the previous administration: https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]
"we should not slip into collective amnesia over the Obama administrationâ(TM)s weak and unde
Re: (Score:3)
Sure , Trump has been by far the most anti-Russian president in ages, but his heart isn't really in it so it doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently that is what the majority on here think yes. Or five dimensional chess. He may appear to act against Russia but it is only a devious scheme from Putin to win a prize nobody understands. Or it's to sow dissent, another nice translation for 'I have no idea why someone would do this'.
Re:DHS knew, but didn't say anything (Score:5, Insightful)
The con artist has not said a single word about Russian actions anywhere EXCEPT in Syria when he whined Putin wasn't controlling Assad enough which is why the gas attacks on civilians happened. And even to that, the con artist notified Russia in advance of the failed attack so no Russian soldiers would be harmed.
And before you say, "What about the U.S. killing those Russians in Syria?", the con artist never said anything about it. Not good or bad. He was silent. His minions were the ones who said anything and only in passing. But since that time, not a word about Russian soldiers deliberately ramming U.S. soldiers or any of the other provocations by Russia in Syria against U.S. troops.
The con artist has even gone out of his way to apologize for Russian actions in Syria, saying the U.S. is no better. And speaking of Syria, what was the con artist's response to reports Russia had put bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers? Again, silence. He has admitted he has never brought up the subject when talking with Putin.
Also, when he did talk to Putin, he believes whatever the dictator says. Remember how the con artist said he asked Putin if Russia interfered in the 2016 election and Putin said no. What was the con artist's response? "I believe him." Really? The leader of a country we know for a fact was interfering in our election says no, they didn't, and the con artist admitted he believed him? Imagine if Obama had said that.
Remind me again how "tough" the con artist has been on Russia? From the very first time he signed a bill for sanctions on Russia the con artist was whining it was so unfair. In fact, last year the con artist EASED sanctions on Russia [politico.com] despite a law saying otherwise. It was only because of Moscow Mitch that the Senate didn't go along with the bipartisan House vote.
Re: (Score:3)
The US had policy actions against Russia. However, those were Congressional actions, actions ordered under Obama, and actions where Congress had to overrule Trump's rollbacks. I guess what I'm saying is that the US did take actions, Trump did not.
Re:DHS knew, but didn't say anything (Score:5, Insightful)
What youre experiencing is what is otherwise known as propaganda, and its been a thing forever. Grow up and develop critical thinking skills.
We have; we can see your propaganda. The OP gives a clear link to a source which is a relatively reputable US news source - the news article gives attributed and clear statements including effective acknowledgement from DHS that the story is true: "a DHS spokesperson confirmed that the product was “delayed,” explaining that it failed to meet the agency’s standards.". Note the lack of any claim by the DHS that the statement was wrong. You should think about what that implies - a foreign state is attempting to interfere with your elections and your government is effectively helping that.
why not (Score:4, Insightful)
peacedata (Score:2)
is a way to render a common Russian obscenity () which means "this is good" as approval or as an expression of general satisfaction. jes' sayin' :)
As if (Score:2)
they didn't have enough disinformation already?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really! Show me such an instance oh enlightened one!
In other news..... (Score:3)
Targeting? (Score:2)
Is that the new word meaning "shooting fish in a barrel"? Americans are feeding themselves such a massive stream of bullshit that I can't imagine why the Russians would bother. Are they just doing it out of habit, to hone their craft?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the Russians were doing it (I disagreed about that from the start, following the line of Robert Parry), why would the americans have been making such a big deal out of such a tiny effect? That is the question one should ask.An the answer is entirely about opportunism.
Russians ALWAYS targeting Americans with disinfo (Score:3)
I though Russians were ALWAYS targeting Americans with disinformation. So what's new? B-)
But the last time I looked, they were pushing BOTH sides of the agenda, amplifying anything that would widen the divide between the US right and left.
The game for them isn't to get Trump or Biden to win. The game is "Let's you and him fight!" They want to debilitate the US, eliminating it as an effective and competing world power.
If they can drive us into civil war, they've achieved their wildest dreams.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They do want Trump to win -- he's more divisive. And after the election there will be cries of illegitimate election, regardless of who wins. They'll probably help Biden a bit as well, just to ensure they can get caught having helped the winner.
Re: (Score:2)
The news story is Trump is fairly moderate Republican with wide support between the cities that seem hell bent on destroying themselves this summer. Whats does the russians have to spr
This is what happens ... (Score:2)
Nothing new (Score:2)
Pretty fucking weenie (Score:4, Insightful)
https://yasha.substack.com/p/a... [substack.com]
-“We created a virtual open shop for thievery at a national level and for capital flight in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the raping of natural resources and industries on a scale which I doubt has ever taken place in human history.” —E. Wayne Merry, a U.S. Embassy official in Moscow during the 1990s.
-In 1999 Boris Yeltsin called up Bill Clinton to tell him that Vladimir Putin would be his hand-picked presidential successor months before anyone in Russia knew, and all but asked Clinton for his nod of approval.
-During the 1990s, Russia's vast wealth was privatized to a tiny handful of connected insiders. Millions of people were thrown into poverty and prostitution. Millions died premature deaths. The Lancet estimated that 4 million people died just in the first half of the 1990s as a result of Washington-imposed neoliberal and hyper-capitalist reforms.
-United States intervention in Russia’s nascent democracy helped transform a young parliamentary republic with a weak presidency into the centralized, authoritarian system of government that exists today
Now that's meddling!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
United States intervention in Russia’s nascent democracy helped transform a young parliamentary republic with a weak presidency into the centralized, authoritarian system of government that exists today
It's likely that the US intervention helped. It's even more likely that roughly the same would have happened without US involvement, given Russia's history.
But, really, what's your point? This isn't a moral argument about meddling in foreign countries. If it were you might have a point that turnabout is fair play. This is a pragmatic argument about whether citizens of a country should welcome and perhaps even invite foreign meddling, and whether a country's government should do what it can to prevent fo
A neverending stream of bullshit (Score:3)
You guys have no idea to what extent you're drowning in propaganda. For every claim you counter there are two new ones propping up while you're talking.
20 years ago it was Al Qaeda. Everything the US did was becasue of Al Qaeda. Until Al Qaeda had grown hundreds of times larger and it was not an urgent problem anymore. Then it was Russia. And then China. Sometimes there is a kernel of truth, usually not. The main thing is it is a pretext to go all out and build a public consensus. Russiagate was unusual in that there was nothing behind it but especially that it was such a large conspiracy. Well, conspiracy, yes, but mostly it is a bandwagon where everyone joins if it suits their agenda. At least during McCarthyism there was Russian spying. At least with Al Qaeda there was a real attack.
Now there's 'Navalny was attacked with Novichok', the least lethal chemical weapon ever which always with certainty points towards the culprit. yeah right. I think not.
People should at least check Matt Taibbi or Aaron Mate on this. I've never known the mass hysteria, the zombie masses to be that bad.
There I fixed that for you (Score:2)
"Facebook & Twitter again targeting Americans with Russian misinformation."
It ain't the Ruskies that write the algorithms & control the platforms.
the bigger threat (Score:3)
If you don't read it, then you're good (Score:2)
Who reads this stuff anymore, or better yet believes it.
Make up your own mind what you want and go that direction.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't you think it's a bit xenophobic to worry only about foreign misinformation and ignore all the home-grown stuff from our own media?
Actually, I think that's exactly the plan. Write a lot of panicky stuff about THE RUSSIANS THE RUSSIANS so that people focus on that and the home-grown lies just slide in under their radar.
Re: (Score:2)
You should get a prize.
fool me once (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. Unfortunately so are we.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We fuck with other countries, other countries try to fuck with us. The leadership of pretty much every country on the planet is made up of assholes.
The common citizens everywhere on the other hand tend to be pretty decent people.
tu quoque [Re:Just like last time?] (Score:2)
Yes, tu quoque indeed.
(for those not familiar: https://www.thoughtco.com/tu-q... [thoughtco.com] ).
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Concept: You can dislike about foreign lying, and ALSO dislike domestic lying, BOTH AT ONCE.
Re: Just like last time? (Score:2)
Correct. But it won't work.
When YouTube pundits get more eyeballs than all 'major' news outlets combined it's game over, man!
About time, I say!
Re: (Score:2)
This. I read the clickbait headline and thought "Twitter" and "Facebook".
Nobody with a brain believes anything from the MSM anymore, much less big-tech.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the thing about about getting one's news from Twitter or Facebook, the users don't see it as coming from "big tech". They see it as coming from their aunt Jenny, an old highschool buddy, or a celebrity they like, and none of them probably even know the original source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chicoms too. (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what the intelligence service said. The NSCS report you are referencing said that Putin was trying to influence the US election, and also that the Chinese preferred Trump not win. There is no mention of any active measures by the Chinese.
Here is the full text of the statement from the NSCS (part of DHS):
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/07... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He and his are (probably) not the agents of a government. Don't even confuse someone talking about "the Chinese" and the actions of "china" as someone talking about the actual Chinese people who lack enough autonomy to be held responsible for anything but their continued failure to escape their abusive relationship with the terrible genocidal dictatorship.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese are free in Taiwan. The native Formosan people? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
How would you feel if Chinese people called you and yours "Amerdemoblicans"?
Most people just call us Ameriderps.
i want to object on the grounds that it is a gross generalization that unfairly paints an ugly picture formed by a small minority over a large body of people. But I'm losing faith in that argument.
Re: (Score:2)
It was amended to empower Clinton https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736 alongside a number of other things which have been adjusted to empower Clintons.
Yes, but not really [Re:Just like last time?] (Score:2)
It was amended to empower Clinton https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov] alongside a number of other things which have been adjusted to empower Clintons.
Well, kinda sorta a little. It was a bill about the State Department, and Hillary Clinton was secretary of state when it was proposed, so I guess in some technical sense it was about "empowering" her. Of course, she only continued as secretary of state for another six months.
In any case, though, it died after leaving committee. It was not passed and did not become a law.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't repealed, it was amended [congress.gov]
You didn't notice that the site you posted the link to is about a bill that was proposed but not passed?
the latest action on it according to that website is that it was referred out of committee... but never considered by the House (much less passed by the Senate).
Re: (Score:2)
Those damn pesky facts...ruining a good outrage.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Informative)
Source? Everything I've read from Mueller says that, no, the Russians were working very hard to get Trump elected. He's been an asset of theirs since he started laundering Russian mafia money back in the 90s. They are about the only folks who will loan him any money, what with his six bankruptcies and all.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Informative)
Really it's the same thing: they want to sow division and distrust in the U.S. government and democratic processes, and it turned out that having Trump as president was the perfect way to do just that. That they have their hooks into Trump somehow is just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Agreed. They hate us because of the Magnitsky Act, freezing all that oligarch money. They want to play with the other global oligarchs and the mean western powers won't let them.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Informative)
Russia's main objective was and is to divide America. They helped every divisive group they could, including the Trump campaign. They increased their spending after the election. Be prepared for cries of election fraud this election.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:4, Funny)
Trump is more than just one among many "divisive groups" they helped though. He has been laundering money for the Russian mafia since the 90s.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018... [vox.com]
Heck, there's been a book written about the longstanding ties between Trump and Putin
https://www.amazon.com/House-T... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All that's true and sadly he still might win. Why can't you dems just come to the middle and tell your loonies to go pound sand? Plenty of room in the middle.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:4, Informative)
Be prepared for cries of election fraud this election.
After? Trump has been crying 2020 election fraud for months now.
For that matter, Trump cried fraud after the 2016 election, because it hurt his ego that he lost the popular vote.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, you are wrong, the Mueller report said "Yes, absolutely collusion. But we can't prosecute 'cause he's president." That's a big part of why so many Trump cronies are sitting in jail right now. But of course if you only listen to biased sources, you will only hear idiots paid to scream "no collusion."
Re: (Score:2)
No, see I was quoting the actual report. You are referencing biased partisan summary reporting of the report.
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what Time says on the matter, for your edification: https://time.com/5610317/muell... [time.com]
Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”
Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.
While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”
Re:Just like last time? (Score:5, Informative)
You could claim that there was no legally proven collusion. That would be accurate. To say that nothing approached what a common person would call collusion is ludicrous, and not born out by Mueller's own wording.
Meanwhile, Trump had a public meltdown when he missed the call from his handler, Putin. https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Putin is coaching Trump on how to destroy democracy and institute an American dictatorship, and useful, ahem, folks such as yourself provide cover and support.
You may think you'd do well under a Trumpist white ethnostate, but I highly doubt you would be one of the few to benefit. Choose your side carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
You act like most of us get a real vote for president anyway. If you aren't in a battleground state, your vote will get washed away by your states mostly consistent lean. Some states are so red or so blue that if you aren't voting with them, your vote won't effectively matter.
The first past the post, winner take all is the worst. You win 51% of the votes in most states and you get all the EC votes. It's incredibly disenfranchising but at least there are local and state issues to vote on, as well as house of
Re: (Score:2)
I've read it and it states there was what any normal person would call collusion. The ties between Trump and Putin go back three decades.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018... [vox.com]
Or read the book.
https://www.amazon.com/House-T... [amazon.com]
You are carrying water for a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Intent and effect [Re:Just like last time?] (Score:2)
(you might argue that they focused attacks on Hillary Clinton because they, like most of the pundits, thought she'd win, and hence they thought they were sowing distrust of the eventual president. That's a reasonable reading of the events. But, their motives aside, what they did was influence the election, and since the actual margin was very very
Re: (Score:3)
"Yes, the Russians' intent was primarily to sow division and distrust in the government-- but they did so in a way which influenced the election."
Give this guy the points. He stated the issue more accurately than my own comment above. I would speculate the Russians also knew that Trump being elected would disrupt things more than Clinton but I doubt even they could have predicted the extent to which her cadre and party were willing to disrupt the country in the aftermath.
China and Russia never stopped their
Re: (Score:2)
"... to paraphrase Putin",
Would you care to cite a reliable source for Mr Putin saying that? Or anything remotely like that?
Just to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Re: (Score:3)
I remembered incorrectly, it was Albright: "Trump Is the Gift that Keeps Giving to Putin".
Putin himself never directly said it; but laughed at jokes along those lines at some event for him which were confused in my memory of it. As I dug for it I realized the memory error.
However, it's not a hard mistake to make...
The main tactic used by their spies is subversion and you can find materials on how that actually works (as opposed to the generic term;) You should get the basic concept just looking at all tho
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I just reported this to slashdot as deliberate misinformation.
By the by, anyone here actually read the real news, and see, last week, that the GOP-led Senate intell report came out, and it said that yes, the Russians did work to influence the '16 elections.
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate misdirection.
"(U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was
to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
U.S. democratic process. "
There is a big p
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. The above isn't complete without pointing out the commitee states the report does not believe what they've reported is a complete view of the facts. Additionally there is this bit. Which they try to spin in a damning tone...
"(U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about
WikiLeaks's planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain
vii
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE~ RUSSIA INVESTIGATION ONLY
inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purport
Re: (Score:3)
Deliberate misdirection.
"(U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process. "
There is a big problem here it completely ignores that the information which was hacked and leaked was real,
Why is that in any way relevant? The question is "did the Russians hack into computer systems with the 'intent to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, and help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee,'?" and the answer is "yes, they did".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was two weeks ago and within a day it was clear that it consisted of rehashed fabrications.
Some new lies about Kilimnik, that he was a Russian Intelligence officer. Based on what? Or stuff about Russian officials based on the fact that they are Russian so must be official.
Re: (Score:2)
This time around they are trying to use the word "riot" as much as possible.
If they can scare the retirees enough to distract them from Trump's plan to turn Social Security funding into yet another political football, they win.
If the retirees wake up and say "hell no! I don't want my checks held up every six months while congress bickers", they lose.
TFA documents an effort to try to dispirit the left side of the Democratic vote... I think this time around, that's wasted effort, given everyone has seen what
Re: (Score:2)
No. You ran Hillary. Someone the right hated and feared. Biden is just a fool. Hillary was smart, capable and calculating. She's more authoritarian then liberal.
This time, people on the right might just stay home instead of voting against Biden. That's the best the Dems can hope for.
Re: (Score:2)
The astroturfing on web sites with postings is part of a larger problem. Companies, political organizations, intelligence agencies, entire countries are posting leading or devicive items designed to stir outrage as much as persuade. In other words, reverse psychology.
Some beer company paying models to stand around a bar holding Zimas this is not.
Re:Russians are a drop in the bucket (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is thing.
If it comes from an American Lobby group, they have a responsibility towards the message. Russians (and Chinese) are pretending to be American groups to give messages without having responsibility towards the message.
Freedom of speech allows us to express our ideas, however we still have responsibility and accountability for what we say.
We all have an agenda that we want to push, and it may conflict with someone elses. However we should know if it is conflicting who it is conflicting with.
Russia agenda isn't about the topics it is pushing, but they know it may push our buttons. So they do things like organize a Black Lives Matter protest, and also organize a Blue Lives Matter protest at the same place. Just so there will be friction. Russia doesn't really care about how our minorities are treated or how dangerous police work is in America. The Russian Agenda is about keeping starting and keeping Chaos in the United states, so it become the responsible stable world government.
Re: (Score:3)
Ghahahah. You think American lobby groups are accountable. That's rich man. When it comes to the rich and powerful and the war on your mind, no one is every held accountable to anything on this planet any more.
Re: (Score:3)
At least you know them. You see a guy with an NRA sticker, you know they are gun nut. If you hear an NPR story and they say they are sponcered by the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation you know they may have some influence as well.
Re:This bullshit again? (Score:5, Informative)
https://thehill.com/policy/nat... [thehill.com]
That's the GOP-led Senate intell report.
And the answer is, they did. The only debunking is Faux News and Trumpolini's LYING that it was debunked.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on page 782. Russia interfered with 2016. The proof is there, you just have to go read it. The weird part is all the conspiracy theorists think they are doing great research, but missing source documents.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing that has been thoroughly debunked is the idea that Trump was ever knowingly and deliberately conspiring with Russia to achieve ends that would not be America's own best interest.
But that is not remotely the same thing as Russia pushing out propaganda to try and get Trump elected.
Bingo. It's surprising how few people point that out.
Yes, Russia did what they could to interfere with the election (as well as sow discord in other ways). No, there's no evidence that Donald Trump himself was knowingly conspiring with them.
But everybody here wants to be either full-on "no, the Russians didn't interfere", or full-on "yes, and Trump knew and was helping them."
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, that's only because until the USA had Trump for president, it was really hard to imagine how the country's leader could be professionally incompetent enough to not publicly denounce it immediately the instant it started to be suspected
Because Trump presented the appearance of simply denying that it had actually happened, calling the entire investigation a "hoax", he ended up coloring himself quite plainly, and however unintentionally, as an apparent co-conspirator.
Re:This bullshit again? (Score:4, Informative)
All of the investigations for Russia collusion is based on the Steele dossier.
Not accurate. The Steele dossier was one of several things that provided a reason to open an investigation. The investigation itself did not use the Steele dossier, and it showed, yes, the Russians interfered, and yes, some members of the Trump campaign tried to help them. And this is all in the Senate report (which was a GOP-led investigation).
(It also, to be fair, says that there is no evidence whatsoever that Donald Trump himself was involved with this.)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can keep trying to call Biden demented but I'm watching him now on TV... aside from his known lifelong stutterring issue he's clear, understands questions the reporters are asking, stays on topic, and speaks in complete sentences. Very refreshing after four years of incoherent hucksterism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Covid has taken this year, just since the outbreak, has taken more than 100 year, look, here's, the lives, it's just, when you think about it." https://twitter.com/KyleKulins... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not stuttering Potsy:
"Covid has taken this year, just since the outbreak, has taken more than 100 year, look, here's, the lives, it's just, when you think about it."
https://twitter.com/KyleKulins... [twitter.com]
Oh yes, such horrible from Biden. Because the con artist sounds so coherent [9cache.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, an actual Russian! The last Russians I asked , they simply believed the western claims. Just what Putin would do!
Well it would have been no drama. A bit of foreign interference wouldn't be no drama, it happens a lot. The Russians can't do much no, not even if they try.
But this is different. The spectre of external enemies. Casting dissent as Russian disinformation.Or soon, Chinese disinformation. Broad suppression of social media. It looks more like a war state preparing for war.
Re:Pot meet kettle (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, Facebook ignored 400+ complaints about the pages that encouraged people to come to Wisconsin with guns in the first place. If they'd taken that one down, maybe Mr. Rittenhouse would be starting 11th grade this week, not facing murder charges.
Anyway, I haven't seen anyone pushing fear of social media psy-ops, but rather awareness. It was sorely needed, considering awareness was at absolute zero, and these companies are happy to tell you what you read is organic all-natural grassroots social fulfillment. These programs are very real and certainly won't stay limited to Russian and Chinese intelligence. They're never going away; Pandora's box is opened. Any time there's a new disease, natural disaster, political crisis, economic problems - anything that can possibly be leveraged to damage a country or organization - there will be an army of shills and amplification bots there to do it. By the time it gets to Grandma, it probably has an old friend's name attached to it.
Any time people complain about "Why did they censor this", "Why didn't they censor that", anytime the phrase "arbiter of truth" gets used, know that the real solution is figuring out how we can get people to disconnect from the propaganda machine as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was a person with a job who did community service doesn't change the fact that he gunned down two people in the street.
He gunned down these two people after first firing on another person from some distance.
When gun control is proposed after mass shootings, that is rejected and it's claimed that 'noble citizens' should rush the shooter to save lives instead.
When that actually plays out, as it did here, instead the people rushing the shooter are suddenly 'violent felons' that t
Re: (Score:2)
>he gunned down two people in the street.
People that were chasing him. They were attacking him. One had a gun. The other grabbed his gun. Why are you excusing mob violence?
> first firing on another person from some distance.
Kyle was being chased. He was running away. The first guy lunged at him attempted to grab his rifle. It was not "some distance". There was an initial gun shot from behind before Kyle opened fire on someone chasing him and lunging toward him in an attempt to grab his rifle. Why are
Re: (Score:2)
Like a nonviolent video demonstrating Kyle attempting to give first aid to people injured?
The video shows the murderer offering to help while other people were doing the work. A real medic on the scene told a street medic to stay away from him because he looked like bad news.
Further, as pictures show, Rittenhouse was pretending he was some kind of law enforcement and police, instead of doing their job and removing asshats like him, used the white supremacists who showed up as additional forces to block prot [usatoday.com]