Slashdot Mirror
Cameron Says People Radicalized By Free Speech; UK ISPs Agree To Censor Button
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Techdirt: A few years ago, we mocked then Senator Joe Lieberman's request that internet companies put "report this content as terrorist content" buttons on various types of online content. The plan went nowhere, because it's a really bad idea, prone to massive abuse. Yet, over in the UK, some apparently think it's such a grand idea that they're actually moving forward with it. This isn't a huge surprise — the current UK government has been going on for quite some time about banning "extremist" content, and just recently ramped up such efforts. And now it appears that a bunch of big UK broadband access providers have agreed to play along: The UK's major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation. They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
A lot of people are going to complain about the freedom of speech or expression, but that's a pretty American thing. Most countries have limited freedoms of speech, the UK included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... I wish more countries had absolutely protected speech, but somehow things that are "offensive" to any ONE person are vilified. I'm sure a lot of people would have wanted to censor MLK Jr. and others, it's not just terrorists and nazi's that use freedom from opression to get their points heard. It seems a lot of people forget that.
Make this such an onerous burden that the ISPs are forced to either withdraw their support, or just censor everything that is flagged without checking it. To do this, report everything that is remotely political as "extremist" and "radicalizing". When the politicians themselves are the targets of their bad law, they just might take a hint.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Has there ever been a censorship campaign without some allegedly noble objective? I certainly can't remember anyone standing up and saying "Yeah, it's forbidden because we are basically evil like that." There is always a threat to the children, social order, national security, etc.
Nice work, Airstrip One.
Can we get a button for lying, scumbag, politicians (sorry to be redundant)?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
https://www.gov.uk/
Here we are on a site where strangers can rate what we say, potentially burying it where others won't get the chance to read it, and we're complaining that governments are vaguely coming around to the same idea? Aww, come on now, haven't we gotten this pattern yet? Legislators are always going to be years behind everybody else in leveraging tech, and will always try to apply it on a broader scale. Do I need to start listing all the sites that have user moderation, post or content scoring, or "report" buttons?
Obviously, because there are so many websites that make it work, there are ways to make it work. Whether it will be abused by consumers (including trolls, shills, marketers, etc etc) to the point of uselessness depends entirely upon the implementation. Whether it will be abused by politicians to control the ideas we're exposed to ultimately depends upon the same thing it always has: whether we keep talking to each other.
The concept we have all gotten used to by now is that we have the right to speak, but not a right to be heard. Again, the fact that you're here means that you've already accepted that. People just don't trust governments to do the same, and site owners may not want the government doing it for them. Obviously there are other options, so it's just a matter of making the right tools.
Have you ever used a "webrep" browser plugin? Personally, I think it would be refreshing and useful to have one that works.
Lets see... who's the most responsible for bombing the largest number of innocent civilians in Britain?
Parliament of course.
So get clicking folks. We need to stop the government from spreading it's propaganda and continuing it's 300 year terror campaign.
The real problem to solve is why children and young people feel the need to become radicalized. Censoring websites will not prevent children and young people from becoming radicalized, indeed, it may even have unintentional consequences.
Who cares? The majority wants this and more. When you consider what those people eat, you'd still think the war was on, and good food was being rationed. Britain leads the way. The US will soon follow. They want the same thing.
The great Australian firewall already does this, although I imagine the firewall does it badly. There are still radicalized Australians trying to travel to Syria. Well, trying because the police have cancelled their passports; another idea Mr Cameron wants to copy.
This is actually quite a good idea. Though without a troll army, you won't be doing much.
Still, I guess a browser add-on could be made that would automatically report any page you visit that contains certain keywords (politicians' names, hint hint) as extremist and radicalizing. Reporting shouldn't be a hassle, after all.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Actually fixing the problem would hurt too many vested interests.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I literally get sick to my stomach every time I see these kinds of proposals. I know us turning into a police state is not the goal of radical Islam, but having us live in fear is and which this will promulgate as a constant reminder.
We use to want to defeat authoritarian regimes by being a beacon of freedom that their citizens aspired to – thus defeating them without having to have boots on the ground. It worked well against the Soviet Union and given enough time will work against radical Islam, that is if we don’t turn into something their people don’t admire and aspire to be.
Just quit playing their game, seriously, leave things alone to sort themselves out. I’m not completely isolationist, groups like ISIS certainly deserve a thumping. I’m not blind that some intervention is called for in extreme cases.
How about we get to UN to quit backsliding on basic freedoms, instead of worrying about the sensitivities of religions? How about to be full fledged member of the UN your people have to have freedom of speech and religion? Political systems and economic systems are up to whoever is in charge, but quit letting theocracies to get a pass on human rights. Do this and within a generation religious radicalism will be a thing of the past.
Letter To Iran
You know - things like objecting to government regulation, complaining about government spying, making a request for public information, suing the government, that kind of thing.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Shouldn't there also be `Racist' and `Sexist' "public reporting buttons" as well?
Did I actually just type that?
Holy shit.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
For the people in the government? Nothing.
Yep! We don't want our kids watching porn! It'll warp them into sex fiends!
We're puttin' in a filter!
No porn for you little Bobby!
Hey little Bobby! How the hell'd you get your hands on porn?
Yep! We don't want our kids watching or reading anything to do with terrorism! It'll turn them into head-chopping raghead terrorists!
We're puttin' in a filter.
No terrorism for you little Bobby!
Hey little Bobby! How the hell'd you get your hands on that terrorist manifesto? And why do you have three wives?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We'd better lock up the non terrorists then.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Doesn't matter. Divide et impera.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Well, on the good side, this would probably silence religious speech.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
the last few major "acts of terrorism" in britain have been by a gent named Pavlo, a Ukranian man with a distinctive axe to grind against Muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... the 2007 glasgow attack was stretched as a "terror ramming attack" of all things, and in 2008 an individual with a history of mental problems who had 'recently converted to islam' attempted to bomb a cafe.
When governments pass antiterrorism laws, its amusing to see their concern for children or the welfare of the youth as Terrorism in the strategic sense does not serve to undermine the citizenry but their government. Events like disclosing sensitive government information related to, in the case of the states, the wholesale slaughter of a crew of journalists by a helicopter team and an ensuing coverup for example are acts of terrorism as they directly challenge and discredit the government as an agent acting genuinely in the best interests of its citizenry. Lastly, it remains to be said that Terrorists arent a toggle switch. In most cases these individuals have been pushed to desparation over many years until theyre left determined with nothing to lose. For example, the secret drone strike that killed a man or womans family may be met with a seemingly random and disproportionate retaliation 12 years later as theyve joined a support group of terrorists equally affected by these strikes and ignored by their respective governments.
Britain and most western governments hate terrorism because it is an effective means of wearing down psychologically and emotionally one or more governments political policies in a means that cannot be bargained away or ignored. it inspires political churn in the state, distrust and apathy in the citizenry, and ultimately a further push from policies such as dominionism. It can also be argued that miring large nations in protracted, endless war is both an effective catharsis for an exploited people as well as deterrent against future distatesful foreign policy in the resultant return of wounded troops whom while perfectly alive, serve as a tangible reminder of the govenments complete lack of prudence and judgement again and again.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It would likely silence the speech you just made too.
If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.
Uh...how radical does it have to be, before it's acceptable to hit the button? How radicalized is it acceptable to be? How radicalizable are the proles?
I'd hit the button for anything political or religious in nature. Just because I can.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
would introduce laws that stifle free speech and privacy. The goal of the terrorists is to disrupt our way of life so any that politicians that enact laws where free speech and privacy is removed in the name of fighting terrorism is in fact helping the terrorists spread terror and dictatorship.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Oh I would not be too sure of that. Just wait until some bright spark thinks to start a campaign to click the button to report an MP's speech as "extremist" and "radicalising". Someone more cynical than I might even suggest that this is part of the government's plan to deal with UKIP....
Free speech may lead to more consequences since the times of Reagan, but free speech itself is still alive and well.
Really? The US makes a lot of noise about free speech but this law only restricts the US government. If you exercise your "right" you can end up fired, refused services and/or prosecuted for minor crimes to silence you. There is no concept that someone providing a public service has a duty not to discriminate based on your political views. Hence there is no real freedom of speech: if you say something loudly enough which the big corporations disagree with then expect to end up jobless, homeless and penniless...but hey at least your aren't in prison so it's all good, right?
While we seem to be advancing technologically at an exponential rate, it seems culturally we're advancing at a snail's pace. I wonder how long it'll be before this divide is so vast it swallows us whole. It's like little kids with a gun; they know what it is and what it does, yet invariably someone ends up getting shot. What I can't figure out is if our misuse of technology is out of ignorance or malice.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Is it time to have a Cameron meme with 1984 on it?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I would like to hear what Jenson Button has to say - is he going to retire after this season?
Hey, it could work in the people's favor though. What if thousands went on a campaign to click the "terr'ist" button on all the articles having to do with Cameron himself?
/thread with a Hermann Göring quote.
The reason why there are so many radical islamists in the middle east is that their governments gave them way too much freedom of speech... or something like that.
If you really needed any more proof that British beef might have some effect on your sanity...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That was the last straw for UK on my part.
I'm a peaceful citizen, the closest thing I'll ever get to battle with someone is when my neighbors dog takes a dump on my lawn.
But I am seriously tired of the ongoing acceptance of total censorship everywhere, and since I'm pretty much independent and a free spirit, I can move basically anywhere in the world I want to go. UK has long been on my list since it's not that easy to get a Green Card in the U.S. But it's fairly populated, speaks English natively...and I thought the business would be good over there. BUT at what cost, my freedom? No way, sir!
Who determines what terrorism really is? Having the wrong opinion? Disagreeing with the governments decisions? Having the wrong sexual preference? Watching illegal cartoons? Using Linux and reading the Linux Journal (according to the latest from the NSA...those people are potential terrorists).
I refuse to live in a country that suppresses its citizens, and with citizens so stupid they'll take anything they can get, laying down - butt up!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Not yet. But I guess in 1-2 years I'll be earning that label with the ever changing definition then certainly including anyone who thinks the daily 2-minutes-hate is bull.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Get married and soon you will long for the good old days when your buttons were pushed only once a day.
Yes, this. I was going to suggest a campaign to overload their system with false positives but come to think of it this idea is pretty extremist and it is radicalising me into abusing their censorship system, so maybe it wouldn't be a *false* positive after all.
Remember when BT got lambasted as they intercepted all their user's web page requests using Phorm to be able to track users and insert their own ads into web pages? There was a big backlash with everybody saying a web page should be allowed to travel from a web server to a web browser unmolested. It's no surprise they will jump at an excuse to be able to intercept all their users web pages and manipulate the content before it arrives at the web browser. Sets a great precedent for them.
It would be interesting to see transcripts of Cameron's speech as it's hard to believe he is as idiotic as he has been made out to be. His quote that we must "deal with the Internet" doesn't mean anything as radical as a report button on web pages. Though his quote "We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space" is bound to make him a hate figure globally online. I've no idea how his PR man let that slip past. "Just because you are online does not mean you are immune from the law" would have been much better.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
The people only want it because they're only fed misleading propaganda. Once again, this just shows that the ignorant masses are ignorant and gullible and incredibly easy to manipulate.
Lets make it easy, here in the US. Do you want the same people who setup Obamacare and all the issues it had and has, running your internet?
Is the U.K. currently experiencing a prison occupancy shortage by any chance?
"How many protest reportings of my representative's speech as radical does it take to get to the center of a London* state prison, Mr. Owl?"
"ONLY ONE." [bars slam]
* everybody knows London is the only city in the U.K. anyway
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I'm fucking tired of all these asshole cocksuckers that have to post that profane shit all over the internet.
Except for the part where the Nazi reference wasn't intended to discredit anyone. Pretty sure using a Nazi reference to unsarcastically agree with someone is a reverse Godwin.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
...when the old Soviet era jokes start fitting the western world. Want some samples? These are original jokes that were told in or about the Soviet Union. All I really did was to switch names and places (and translate those that had no English translation yet).
Don't think.
If you think, don't speak.
If you think and speak, don't write.
If you think, speak and write, don't sign.
If you think, speak, write and sign, don't be surprised.
(this one is actually more funny in Russian because it's far more terse and laconic)
Every morning a man would come up to the newspaper stand, and buy a copy of USA Today, look at the front page and then toss it angrily into the nearby bin. The newspaper-seller was intrigued. "Excuse me," he said to the man, "Every morning you buy a copy of USA Today from me and chuck it in the bin without even unfolding it. What do you buy it for?" "I'm only interested in the front page,' replied the man. "I'm looking out for an obituary." - "But you don't get obituaries on the front page!" - "I assure you, this one will be on the front page.
A man was arrested for an assassination attempt on the president. "You didn't really want to kill the president, right?", asks the judge, "You're an ex-marine sniper with hundreds of confirmed victories, and missed from just 300 yards?" "Well, to be honest, it was my intention to kill him, but the people around me distracted me". "Oh, they tried to dissuade you and protect the president with their life?" "Not quite, they kept nudging me, yelling 'shoot, dammit, shoot!'"
We are the most progressive country in the world. Yesterday we already had it better than we'll have it tomorrow!
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to make ends meet on salary alone?”
We’re answering: “We don't know, we never tried.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the economic upturn is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?”
We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What to do if a man you don't know takes a seat at your table in a pub and starts to sigh?”
We’re answering: “Immediately demand to stop the defeatist propaganda.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to export our system to Switzerland?”
We’re answering: “It's possible, but why? Did Switzerland really do something wrong to you?”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Why some people say that Afghans love the Americans and hate the Russians?”
We’re answering: “Because Americans helped Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians, but the Russians didn't."
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the easiest way to explain the meaning of the word ‘democracy’?”
We’re answering: “Judging from our foreign policy, by means of weapons."
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the duration of the workday in America?”
We’re answering: “Of course, it's an eight-hour workday: from eight am to eight pm.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is an exchange of opinions?”
We’re answering: “When you walk into your boss's office with your opinion and walk out with his.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Can a son of a middle manager become a CEO?”
We’re answering: “No, because every CEO also has a son.”
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it true that there are two kinds of people serving as senators, as congressmen and as members of the Supreme Court?”
We’re answering: “Yes, it is a true. One kind is those not capable of anything at all, and
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The way you clicked on that report button seemed kinda rape-y to me. Reported.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
He almost lost the Scotland gamble. And of course there will be a second Referendum in a couple of years which will end in a divorce. He leads the UK out of the EU sinking the British finance sector. He also wants to cancel the European human rights treaty. And he censors the internet and spies on everyone.
He mostly acts like a child. He is angry or has tears in his eyes. And then he lies to the British and then the EU is the cause of all problems according to Cameron. He is an upper class classisist with a big ego and no intellect. And I am very sorry for the UK, but he will ruin it for most of them.
I'm glad I live in America. The land of the free!!!
Oh wait...
The old "think of the children" argument.
*Ahem* Fuck you, David Cameron! We kicked your ass off this continent once over this issue and we'll do it again! And also Avatar was nothing both soft core furry porn! So there!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So it's inevitable that lots of content will be mis-identified as extremist by use of the convenient reporting button. Who gets to decide? Inevitably this will end up being about the biases of whoever is in charge.
I can think of various things that should be itemised as nasty. I am all for letting crazies speak but I would like them and everyone else to know how many people think they are dodgy,
"What type of things" you might ask "would I want to identify as hateful?"
You could start with our most hate filled politics. We have little as far right as you guys but there ae simple acronyms for some of the worst - ECDL, BNP, UKIP and the like. Their right to say things should not be restricted but everyone going to their sites should receive a reminder whenever they go to their web sites that these people are to be examined very carefully as some of them are completely nuts and even the mildest of them may well be the bunch of "fruitcases" that they were described as!
If there was a "Really Crazy" button that we could report groups from those to Home Secretaries who want to mess us up, that would be really useful...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Oh, I agree; restricting speech has to be very carefully considered and continually evaluated based to deal with edge conditions and resulting effects. I was merely pointing out consequences of the stated, proposed limitations. (For example, here in Canada, they had to places special exemptions in the hate speech legislation to allow the Bible and Koran.)
If there is speech to be banned, it would be best if it were up to me ;)
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
it was making sure that a bunch of entitled babies that think they don't have to pay their fair share were not using tax exempts statuses to avoid paying their fair share.
Hey, it could work in the people's favor though. What if thousands went on a campaign to click the "terr'ist" button on all the articles having to do with Cameron himself?
What Cameron a radical terrorist? Who've you been talking to? What have they told you? He definitely isn't a terrorist. All those people he's ordered summarily executed, extraordinarily rendered, tortured, and sexually abused are the terrorists. He's keeping us safe from them. If they weren't running from our drones and death squads, they'd be out protesting and demanding democratic representation in their own countries!
Perhaps a congressional investigation could sort out the truth of the matter, so that we're not forming opinions on a lack of evidence?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's not even controversial that the FBI coordinated a crackdown on Occupy. http://www.theguardian.com/com...
The FBI even knew of possible assassination plots via rooftop sniper fire, and not only would they not act on these obvious acts of terrorism--the FBI has tried only to hide public knowledge of these plans. http://www.democracynow.org/20...
The entire HBGary scandal came about due to the Chamber of Commerce (which shouldn't be a part of government to begin with) cooperating with Bank of America through a middleman to target activists and occupy figureheads.
Furthermore, the government has been paying trolls to trash both OWS and the tea party on various sites. But it's too early for you to hear about that in mainstream news (even though the Intercept broke the story of government-paid trolls earlier this year: https://firstlook.org/theinter...)
So the idea that the government hasn't tried to suppress occupy is BULLSHIT.
Sheltering people from radical ideas is not the solution, for the same reason that sheltering children doesn't work in the long run. Instead, educate them. Give them the tools of rational and critical thinking, and then let them choose for themselves.
"Sorry Bill, too much terrorist, aristocrat-killing propaganda in your plays. Lock him in the tower, mates."
Might as well piss on their graves.
Not for Muslims. UK seems to have two separate standards: one for Muslims, one for everybody else.
Muslim preach hate in the streets all the time. Muslims are allowed to offend anybody. Nobody is allowed to offend Muslims.
Is there going to be a separate website where you have to copy and paste the URL of the page you want to report (what could possibly go wrong?), or will your ISP somehow insert the button into every webpage you load (what could possibly go wrong?), or will the button be a separate pop-up on every page (what could possibly go wrong?)?
And if you're trying to report a single comment on a page full of comments, how will you go about being sure it's that comment and only that comment that gets reported? (what could possibly go wrong?)
And how much extra will your ISP tack onto your monthly bill to cover their "expenses" in providing this "service"? (what could possibly go wrong?)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I don't see your point at all. What does this have to do with censorship? Are you trying to say that our fundamental liberties are less important than safety?
Absolutely nothing can go wrong.
I'll be reporting pretty much all the BBC content on a regular basis.
And what sort of person are you to question the bona fides of her majesty's government? Who are you? Where do you live? What is your motive for spreading this extremist claptrap? What you are doing is giving aid and comfort to criminal terrorists! We have ways of dealing with terrorists like you!
Speech which besmirches Islam. There are already anti free speech laws in the UK to cover speech directed at Islam (and only Islam).
Earlier this year? That's been public knowledge since at least 2003. People were posting on Blogspot as early as 2004 about how they had been paid to disrupt online forums, we had several on the Alternet and Utne forums. For that matter there were FBI trolls disrupting BBS and IRC discussions back in the '90s.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Hey you're not allowed to point this out. (!) The legislation has no exemtion for criticisims simply because they're true, ;-(
"...voting the wrong way"? Does not the vote give us the right to choose as we wish? The "wrong" vote will always be a matter of opinion.
"When you name your movement after a bunch of guys who didn't want to pay taxes,"
History lesson: The Boston Tea Party was almost entirely composed of smugglers who'd been making out like bandits due to high import taxes on tea and had suddenly had their livelihoods demolished by that tax being reduced to nearly zero.
The "taxed tea" they dumped into the harbour was substantially cheaper than the smuggled stuff they'd been selling up to that point.
When you realise that, you start possibly realising the real intent of the Tea Party.
A modern analogy would be recreational drugs being legalised & made available via dispensaries at low prices and a bunch of narco-gangs going around destroying legally imported supplies of the items in question in order to keep the price up.
The problem with banning "extremist" content is, "What is this dumb ass is right? But for all the wrong reasons."
Agreed. But if you were to accuse any one American or small group of Americans, they would be offended at such remarks. Americans don't see themselves as ignorant or gullible. But hat certainly doesn't change the facts does it? They even take pride in their ignorance and gullibity by associating it with (radical) individualism. They believe you can believe what you want no matter how uninformed it might be. Take religion as one example.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Rather than scratching such a law as unfeasible, impractical and irrational, they would simply make another law criminalizing clicking the "terrorist" button without just cause, making false police reports, etc. Following up with tracing your IP address and arresting you. Either way, liberty become prey.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Oh I would not be too sure of that. Just wait until some bright spark thinks to start a campaign to click the button to report an MP's speech as "extremist" and "radicalising". Someone more cynical than I might even suggest that this is part of the government's plan to deal with UKIP....
However unpleasant and stupid UKIP are, they're not a terrorist organisation.
Anyway, I thought the government's plan for dealing with UKIP was to copy their Xenophobic policies as far as possible, thereby making UKIP irrelevant, when you could get the same thing just as easily by voting for the tories, i.e. with Cameron sliminess instead of Farragean twattery.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Since when was reporting someone for criminal activity censoring them?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You forgot to include the Bank of England in your plan.
I completely agree, however virtually no-one in the public would acknowledge what you and I have already recognized--government-paid trolls--until the Intercept article came about with leaks proving this to be the case. So my "earlier this year" is a conservative estimate, definitely. But yeah, there's a proven trail of paid or intern disinfo trolls going back through the 2000s, however their efforts hadn't hit full-speed until the Obama years (especially the last three years or so).