Slashdot Mirror


Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

An anonymous reader writes: Today the New York Times published a stunning exposé revealing the strategies used by one of the Web's greatest enemies: professional, government-backed "internet trolls." These well-paid agent provocateurs are dedicated to destroying the value of the Internet as an organizing and political tool. The trolling attacks described within are mind-boggling -- they sound like the basis of a Neal Stephenson novel as much as they do real life -- but they all rely on the usual, inevitable suspects of imperfect security and human credulity.

276 comments

  1. par for the course by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

    What you were expecting something else?

    1. Re:par for the course by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      It seems you have not met professional trolls from the other side. You understand my word "other".

    2. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed.. The "other" side... From 4 years ago.
      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    3. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like coldfjord?

    4. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Holy crap, that guy. Cold fjord shows up to every Snowden/Manning/Wikileaks story like an unwanted sex offender to a family Christmas dinner.

    5. Re:par for the course by mi · · Score: 0

      It seems you have not met professional trolls from the other side. You understand my word "other".

      I do not. Please, elaborate — with citations. Thank you.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:par for the course by jj1981ua · · Score: 1

      +1. russians and putin strange - there many poor and needy and they squander the money Typed with Loderi.com

      --
      the problem is that if you think you have time
    7. Re:par for the course by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      Well, hint. What is the side of trolls that can contaminate every blog in Russia with anti-Russian commentaries in pure Russian language if you Americans usually don't speak Russian?

    8. Re:par for the course by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Russia has been late for pretty much every post Cold War new front party. Looks like they were late for this one as well. Israel's version of this was documented half a decade ago, and US version has been reported to be moving from using people to developing automated software back in 2011.

      http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

      Looks like they're late once again.

    9. Re:par for the course by mi · · Score: 0

      Well, hint.

      Please, stop talking in riddles. Make your accusations and provide citations, or go away. Put up or shut up, so to speak...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The professional Russian trolls are about as subtle.

      Thing is, you don't need to be very good at trolling if you are working full time at it. You will always get the last word against people who has better things to do than to argue with paid trolls.

    11. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:par for the course by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The professional Russian trolls are about as subtle.

      Do we know Cold Fjord is not a Russian troll? After all, he's making American patriotism look bad by associating it with authoritarianism.

      Thing is, you don't need to be very good at trolling if you are working full time at it. You will always get the last word against people who has better things to do than to argue with paid trolls.

      You will always get the last word, and then what? The point of such trolling is to disrupt, to keep people arguing over stupid shit forever so they're too busy to discuss Putin's failures or what to do about him; if other posters ignore him, he has failed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:par for the course by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I actually started reading the article itself, rather than just focusing on thread. I gave up, the moment it became readily apparent the article was in reality about about itself. This you can readily garner from how they have stitched up isolated events into one grand anti-Russian government conspiracy.

      First up the false catastrophe news stories, basically mimicking modern main stream media and it's massive hyping up of events to draw viewers. Of course on the internet they can not wait for an events to hugely exaggerate, so they create their own and attempt to draw in as many viewers as possible to the ad space they are selling. Anything at all to do with the Russian government, nope. There are thousands upon thousands of web sites bullshitting about everything imaginable thing trying to bring in viewers to the ad space they are selling. Do these trolls have more than one site, you bet, they have as many as they can manage and afford. All with different schemas and titles but with identical content. It is not like it is that much effort, once you create those sites, you just edit the content xmls and they all change, one site or hundreds, no grand conspiracy, just the one bunch of trolls and they come from all over the world not just Russia.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:par for the course by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now we all know how pathetically poor the Russian government is, they can not afford a real army or airforce or navy or space agency and as such can not afford trolls who must sign national security agreements and who sideline as analysts (trained in multiple languages and well informed), nope the poor, poor Russian government must contract this out to backyard propaganda firms. Oh come on NYT go away.

      Sure the Russian government has intelligence agencies along with analysts trolls but they are not poor backyard pathetic trolls, these are full time douche bags just like the NSA/CIA and they are just as strictly controlled. If a NYT reporter tried to interview one of them, not only would that analyst troll spend time in a prison, so would the NYT reporter (the report would not be spending time in that prison for being a reporter, nope they would be spending time in that prison for being something else). No matter where the in the world you go, you can pay some poor idiot to say anything you want them to say and claim it as news.

      PS all the worlds major intelligence agencies have criminally inserted agents in every main stream media company, including the government owned media companies like the BBC in the UK, the ABC in Australia and the CBC in Canada (the PBS is such a lame duck it is not even worth mentioning, poor America can not afford a proper public broadcaster so it must get by with a cheap charity case). In the case of the ABC and CBC, they are not necessarily Australian espionage agents, that would be illegal (it has been legislated that way on purpose) but I'll bet most of you can readily guess exactly which country those particular espionage agents come from.

      Second Post filter went nuts

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:par for the course by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, that guy. Cold fjord shows up to every Snowden/Manning/Wikileaks story like an unwanted sex offender to a family Christmas dinner.

      There are two lies in your post. First, I don't show up to comment on every Snowden/Manning/Wikileaks story. Here are some recent ones. Please point out where I comment in these stories? I didn't.

      Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden
      Statues of Assange, Snowden and Manning Go Up In Berlin
      The Sun Newspaper Launches Anonymous Tor-Based WikiLeaks-Style SecureDrop
      Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference
      Swedish Authorities Offer To Question Assange In London
      Privacy Behaviors Changed Little After Snowden
      NSA Planned To Hijack Google App Store To Hack Smartphones

      Second, if we are going to use a "Christmas dinner" metaphor, what I am is the educated, informed Uncle that is trying to gently persuade the cousin holding crank views that he doesn't understand what he is talking about, and should maybe try to get information from better sources. You apparently are one of "those" cousins.

      Of course I'm not surprised by your attack. When you can't attack the facts then attack the man, right? I'm sure there is a name for that. Supposedly that sort of thing is held in contempt on Slashdot. Do you often do contemptible things?

      I think it is pretty likely that you're the same person that has made repeated attacks against me in various stories that I didn't even post in. That makes me think I may not be posting enough. You'll have only yourself to blame if I start posting more often. Maybe you should buy some Preparation-H ahead of time to prepare yourself.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:par for the course by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Do we know Cold Fjord is not a Russian troll?

      That would seem pretty unlikely to anyone that thinks about it since I have taken a pretty consistent stand against Russian aggression and Soviet Communism. By the same token we could ask the same thing about you. I don't think the case there is as clear, is it?

      After all, he's making American patriotism look bad by associating it with authoritarianism.

      Ah yes, the infamous "authoritarianism" of limited government. Or are you confusing the ability of a free people to defend themselves with authoritarianism? That seems to be a likely source of confusion, no doubt there are others.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:par for the course by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      It's not just that. The goal with these paid shills (not "trolls") isn't to have a dialogue or contribute to any kind of discussion. The goal is just to drop off their propaganda payload so people who skim the comments and don't put any thought into it, will get the impression that this is some kind of normal or widespread viewpoint.

    18. Re: par for the course by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      What a sad guy you are.

    19. Re:par for the course by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That would seem pretty unlikely to anyone that thinks about it since I have taken a pretty consistent stand against Russian aggression and Soviet Communism.

      And that's another talking point Putin would probably want discredited. So it's perfectly consistent with you being on Kremlin's payroll.

      In case you aren't, I suggest you take a long hard look at what kind of service you're actually doing to your country.

      Ah yes, the infamous "authoritarianism" of limited government.

      Limited government? As far as I can tell, your ideal is the exact opposite: a government not bound by any rules, laws or ethics whatsoever, trusted with limitless power over its own citizens and everyone else, wielded with no oversight or regard for consequences.

      Or are you confusing the ability of a free people to defend themselves with authoritarianism?

      No, I simply don't think that people who are being spied on by their government are free. And frankly, I don't think Americans control the American Government anymore. I don't think anyone does. The whole thing acts too much like an animal reacting to its instincts, with no rational will at charge. That's what happens when you let an organization escape human control, and why non-democracies typically require a single strong leader who can force at least some of his will on them. Democracies make do with the voters giving feedback, but that fails if the organization gains power over them, for example with a total, paranoid surveillance system.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a better idea - how about you fuck off and never return? Wankers like you are driving thoughtful and interesting contributors away with your bottomless well of cuntiness.

  2. Toy Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody's poisoned the waterhole!

    1. Re: Toy Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a snake in my boot!

    2. Re: Toy Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're my favorite deputy!"

    3. Re: Toy Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reach for the skies!

  3. America next? by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's just about time to drag the American organized political trolling on sites like reddit, twitter, and tumblr into the open too, right?

    --
    http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    1. Re:America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You left Slashdot off that list.

    2. Re:America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called modern journalism. Welcome to 2015.

    3. Re:America next? by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Or, at the very least, certify and otherwise make them professionals. I would also want them to carry some sort of signage with them or have another person standing near them, at every hour of their day, to shout out "INTERNET TROLL! PROFESSIONAL INTERNET TROLL IS IN THE VICINITY!" Sort of like what we should do with rapists. (stolen from Mr. Show)

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    4. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power

      i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas, but it is less effective in the west

      countries with less free speech protection (like china and their 50 cent bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5... ) will rely on this sort of organized trolling as a means of persuasion and control, domestically and internationally. more than the west, simply because the west has less need to manipulate these whisper campaigns because nonsense on the internet has less power because are exposed to it more in a free speech environment and are more resistant to it. they simply have better trained more critical minds

      the governments of authoritarian countries fear provocative opinions more, therefore they engage in this sort of nonsense more, because they view controlling people's opinions as important. their people wind of living in a walled garden of controlled opinion with less options to consider, and a state that officially endorses and pushes weak minded opinions and fear. the west simply doesn't give a fuck. the opinions and lies of random morons on the internet is exactly that, and most people can see that for what it is. you have to live in a paranoid insecure state to give much credence to inflammatory bullshit from random whispers on the internet

      in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do

      expose a socially and psychologically normal person to 4chan for a month, and what do you get? a crackpot? no, a jaded experienced mind that can see bullshit coming from a mile away

      exposure to the kind of thinking and commentary that resembles mental illness, amongst the more rational choices of speech, gives one a more critical eye and healthy skepticism. the ability to see the difference between credible words and manipulated words

      but in countries where paranoid schizophrenic theories are actually supported and endorsed by the government's official media agencies as a means of control, you breed people to live in panic and fear. weak minds. it's a shame to weaken people's minds like this. russia, china, iran, etc., reap a side effect of their manipulations: a general population more susceptible to idiocies most westerners (not all) would easily reject, simply because westerners (even though some choose to stay within ideological bubbles and never consider other sides out of prideful ignorance, some personality types are universal, but limited) can, and do, see other sources of narrative, good or bad

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power

      Maybe now, but if you pump enough legal pot into people they tend to believe a lot of crazy shit. Just try to say something negative about pot on Reddit. You'll be modded down into oblivion. Maybe it's just because it's a younger demographic on there; but maybe it's because the people that run it want compliance in the long run. There are definitely some creepy things about that site, such as the move towards "safe places", ie, not being allowed to criticize. I'm not just picking on Reddit either. Slashdot's Dice affiliation is well known and often mocked; but these things have a way of wearing you down. In other words, don't get cocky, American. Remain vigilant.

    6. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      there are no absolutes anywhere. it would be easy to find a person more level headed in russia and china than some people in the usa. but i'm talking about trends and averages

      i'm talking about the media environment and what it does to a critical mind. an environment where anything goes means that critical mind is exercised more, exposed to more bullshit and gets more sophisticated and powerful

      but a walled garden, where a government controls more of what is officially (and unofficially, as the existence of government troll brigades shows) said, you breed uncritical minds. that muscle is simply less developed because it is worked less

      it's a continuum. the west simply edges out other countries on the continuum

      i'm not denying that the usa has plenty of hysterical, propagandized morons, and plenty of uncritical minds. it does. a lot of them self-select and out of prideful ignorance choose to live in an ideological bubble where only ideas that support their prejudices is allowed.. *by them*, not by their government. they self-select to remain ignorant. if they hear something that challenges their beliefs, they immediately reject it

      but the existence of such losers is an unchanging baseline across all countries: the propagandized fool. you can't do anything about such uncritical minds, and every country has them

      we're talking about another population here

      there will always be a regular crop of some people who are still intellectually honest and will seek out alternative narratives and alternative sources of news. such people in the west will simply find that a lot easier, and so there will be more critical minds in the west than in countries with less free speech protections. because such intellectually honest minds in more authoritarian countries will not find it as easy to find alternative views, they are trapped. and so they will not develop, and they will fall back into fear and propaganda. their government is purposefully creating a general population of uncritical, weak minds. it's a colossal weakness. the effort is just too hard (and sometimes dangerous) for those *initially* intellectually honest to see more critical views, more alternative views, because their government makes it hard, in countries with few free speech protections. and so such people, who would be the best minds in those countries, fall back into fear and propaganda, and never develop. not so in the west

      in the west, the self-selecting propagandized morons will never seek out views that challenge them, yes, but we're not talking about such useless people, and such people exist in all countries

      on the average, amongst all minds, not just closed ones, more free speech protections means you are breeding more critical minds, simply because such minds exist in a media environment in the west where they can be challenged more and better develop that muscle

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The west is not immune to this.

      Prohibition?

      Remember the McCarthy era?

      Nam?

      What about the war on drugs?

      Iraq 2003?

      Where was the west's immunity to bullshit then?

      Also one needs to look at how certain industries such as alternative medicines, spirituality, miracle water etc. are flourishing and making billions in the west to see that people are just as susceptible to bullshit as anywhere else.

      The majority of people on this world either lack critical thinking and reasoning skills (not totally their fault they are conditioned since early childhood), or have the ability to ignore/go against it since they are more concerned with their own well being and daily troubles than worry about the issues troubling humanity as a whole.

      Just to name a few.

    8. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's a continuum. the west falls for plenty of bullshit. it's just that, on the average, the west falls for less

      every single example of the west falling for shit you just gave me, can also be shown in countries with less free speech. and they fall for *more*

      the perfect is not the enemy of the good. if you gauge all countries against an ideal perfection of a populace of everyone being perfectly rational critical minds, which does not exist and never will, then your criticisms are useless

      the west simply edges out countries with less free speech because they train more critical minds. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just that, until countries that now have very little free speech get more, the west will simply do better than them, not perfect

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re: America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wall of text full of naive statements. read goering and goebbels about propaganda techniques. true even in america today.

    10. Re: America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      there is propaganda and there always will be. but in a more free speech environment, you breed more critical minds, because you expose the minds to more bullshit. as opposed to walled gardens in countries with less free speech, which breeds weak minds

      that's all i'm saying. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just *better*

      and people like you seem to think because you can't get perfection, then everything is the same. but it's not the same. therefore your criticisms are useless

      more free speech means more critical minds. that actually means something. if you rejec tthat as useless, you only announce yourself as naive

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re: America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your theories are unsuppoted by reality. in authoritarian counties they know all is bull.

    12. Re:America next? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Nonsense has a power all its own.

    13. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're not kidding

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re: America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      it's a continuum in all countries

      1. the naive, who believe what the official channels say

      2. the genuinely critical and intellectually honest

      3. the hopelessly cynical. too much automatic distrust is not intelligent, it's actually a personality disorder hobbling in the same way naivete is, to automatically reject all info, even something that might be true

      the point is, in the west, those who are genuinely critical have more information sources to peruse, and therefore are better able to find out the truth. in controlled environments, places where fear dominates, the critically minded have less chance to find the truth and, as you say, often wind of hopelessly jaded and cynical and don't believe anything

      this is weakness, not strength

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    15. Re:America next? by joh · · Score: 1

      You still get people requiring that all media is only allowed to tell The Truth. They don't realize that a state that has the power to outlaw lies and by that controlling what is published and what is not published will publish nothing but lies or at least will censor much sooner uncomfortable truths than meaningless bullshit.

      The only way to guarantee that the truth is allowed to be published is to also allow bullshit to be published by allowing to publish whatever you want. If you want to be told nothing but the truth you're begging for lies.

    16. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      well said and absolutely correct

      furthermore, it trains critical minds to be exposed to everything. in this world, there is only one guarantor of truth: you. and you only get a good mind that can smell out bullshit by being exposed to all the different bullshit

      although, there are minds that would have been great, in less free countries, but those minds are weak and flabby: hopelessly cynical

      it is just as dangerous to reject everything as it is to be naive and believe everything. and such once-great minds get that way by being in an environment they see is all lies, but offered nothing valid as an alternative, anywhere. so they become hopeless cynics

      such minds in the west can find other sources, and find out the truth, before they become blind kneejerk cynics. by seeing all the different perspectives

      all perspectives have an agenda, but by seeing many agendas and perspectives, the depiction of an event can be seen for what it is by comparing the differences. in a controlled environment, with only one perspective, you either are a hopelessly trusting moron, or a hopelessly distrusting cynic, both equally hobbling

      only with a plethora of sources and choices is the critical mind trained and maintained

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:America next? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      The majority of people on this world either lack critical thinking and reasoning skills (not totally their fault they are conditioned since early childhood), or have the ability to ignore/go against it since they are more concerned with their own well being and daily troubles than worry about the issues troubling humanity as a whole.

      I'll agree that the majority of people lack well developed critical thinking and reasoning skills, but I do wonder why you equate "being more concerned with your own well being and daily issues [than with some nebulously defined future state]" with a lack of critical thought? All things being equal, I wish our species as a whole nothing but the best now, and tomorrow, but if you tell me that, say, putting a bullet in my head right now is going to make the world a better place for "future generations," my well developed critical thinking skills are most certainly going to be more concerned with my own well being.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    18. Re: America next? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Typical arrogance (or "professional" troll?), so authoritative on things you cannot possibly understand.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re: America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      and you are an authority because...

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:America next? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      I surf too much on the web ;-) and from this perspective must say that I highly doubt that there are organized US trolls. Or at least, if there are some, then they are much harder to recognize. Russian trolls are easy to spot, they come in troves and swamp news media forums. They don't have to be sneaky, because the 1x1 of political propaganda is to simply repeat a complete falsehood over and over. Works all the time.

    21. Re:America next? by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

      The american ones are easy to spot because they will try to socially ostracize (in real life, via doxxing) anyone who does not support their mainstream rhetoric.

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    22. Re:America next? by edis · · Score: 1

      i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas

      Many documents were recently exposed during the truth to the people campaigns. Were there any certainties in particular, that made you certain?
      I am pretty certain, that you can have many variations of activities "to benefit" USA, but my imagination is refusing comparable activities of organized lie, that you are being introduced to now. I must say, I know Russian language, and even was raised in that very environment, that allows to get in depth understanding of what is up there. Can't see how comparable match could be organized and exist in USA, for example.

      --
      Servant of karma
    23. Re:America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do

      You haven't watched much Fox "News" lately, have you?

    24. Re:America next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your country would seem to be the only one where 2 parties hated by all swap back and forth, with never anyone else trying to tip over the apple cart. You are clearly the biggest fallers for bullshit in existence, why else keep voting for the same 2 groups of idiots over and over?

    25. Re:America next? by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Score 5, Scary?

    26. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      is fox news a product of the us govt? are competing news outlets shut down, harassed, or absorbed?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    27. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the usa has much better free speech protections than russia

      free speech leads to a populace that has a healthier critical eye than citizens in countries where few alternative narratives are allowed

      russian government, by controlling media, is breeding flabby, uncritical russian minds

      of course there are still critical russian minds. of course there are flabby propagandized americans. but on average, the usa does better than russia on this measure, because russian government's hostile attitude to alternative perspectives

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:America next? by andot · · Score: 1

      This is example of whataboutism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... . Instead of talking about the real problem we are somehow talking about american problems again and again. This is very usual russian troll tactics.

    29. Re:America next? by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      It is easier to spot paid ones because:
      1) Often they use copy-paste methods. If you are paid by post count, why not be effective.
      2) They work in teams and have recurring patterns (first one says "maybe Putin is bit harsh towards Ukrainians", second says "no, Putin is the best, Ukrainians did bad things", third supplied some illustrative image).

    30. Re:America next? by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

      So my Russian intel says that you love eating shit. Feel free to tell me what your favorite flavor of shit is...

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    31. Re:America next? by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

      All of this is readily apparent in american forums. Basically say anything that disagrees with the general democrat flow is immediately attacked as racist bigotry and you arent even worthy of working a job, so everyone needs to know how evil you are and you need to get fired and live a poor, destitute life.

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
  4. Shit, they're onto us! by Atheraal · · Score: 2

    Boris, fire up the escape bear!

  5. And? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anybody pretending that corporations and politicians aren't already effectively doing the same thing?

    Only they pretty it up with foundations and think tanks who put out position papers to benefit the talking points of the people paying for them.

    Propaganda comes in many forms. And from many sources.

    And even some of the people who will be hand-wringing about this propaganda will be endorsing some other stuff.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everyone's doing it already, so let's just let it continue, right?

      Tu quoque.

    2. Re:And? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      Swarms of unemployed people attempting to influence discussion online?

      No. Our corporations and politicians aren't that smart, or well organized. They may be malicious but I don't think they've got the gumption to properly be this corrupt and evil.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt.

      Anyone who watches broadcast television and takes it seriously is no better off.

      Well, in theory. Russia sort of is a despotic shithole where success means being jailed/murdered so your assets and company can be annexed by one of Putin's business buddies.

    4. Re: And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you dont know cia and their bnd vasalls. they pay top dollar for faz articles THEY write. and which are published under the name of an faz journalist.

      read ulfkotte, he was on the inside.

      our other journalists in germany are u.s. shills too. all members of the atlantikbruecke if important.

      wake up folks, u.s. propaganda is just orders of magnitude better than almost other propaganda. they understand the concept of "stealth"

    5. Re: And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also you never heard of burson marsteller.

      they are essentially information operations specialists FOR HIRE.

      or the nasty M$ shills and all their lies and half truths.

      google and ibm have those warriors also by now.

    6. Re:And? by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

      Well, in theory. Russia sort of is a despotic shithole where success means being jailed/murdered so your assets and company can be annexed by one of Putin's business buddies.

      You are basically right. Russia is sort of beephole where crablike Putin jails the oligarchs etc. Problem is that the side being jailed is not an angel, too. Especially - if the other side is not only the oligarch but the 5th column too. I had some positive emotions towards jailed Khodorkovski, jailed Bolotnaya square demonstrators etc. Now I have no positive emotions: I've seen what kind of people they are.

    7. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Propaganda comes in many forms. And from many sources.

      The public university system is another example.

      The population are forced to support it and aren't allowed to work in one of the better jobs unless they've gotten the approval of the education authorities.

      Not even churches are allowed to force people to tithe to them to spread their philosophy. And churches can't control who does or does not work on the basis of their philosophy.

    8. Re:And? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Didn't take long for the Putin supporters to show up.

    9. Re:And? by Yomers · · Score: 1

      No, lets stop it! It will kill internet as we know in the process - but what can we do, according to FA professional russian trolls already posted fake news about disaster on Columbian Chemicals plant - it's dangerous man, think of the children! Professional russian internet trolls are mystical creatures, but fighting them can take a very real forms of restricting anonymity and overall tightening control over the series of tubes.

    10. Re:And? by Yomers · · Score: 1

      ^mythical , that's the word.

    11. Re:And? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Is anybody pretending that corporations and politicians aren't already effectively doing the same thing?

      Almost every day on the way to work, I hear at least one radio ad for "repairing your company's online reputation...We can help remove false and angry commentary and ratings about your company and its products. A poor online reputation can hurt your bottom line. We can restore your good name. Call now!"

    12. Re: And? by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      While they are really mostly Jews, I don't link it with a nationality. I know enough good Russians with inflammation of the fifth paragraph (Soviet euphemism for Jews)

      I blame the liberal idea as a whole and "Invisible hand" as a part of it.

    13. Re: And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:And? by edis · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you just do not get the extent and falseness of products this, and many other outlets produce in Russia with KGB servant as main man. He still serves KGB. At the moment his whole country is arranged to serve KGB. It was at least the other way round before.

      --
      Servant of karma
    15. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your a Russian troll. The enormity of what Russia is doing staggers. Putin is pissing on the west, and calling it rain, while the west is buying it hook line and sinker. We are blaming Malaysia for irresponsibly flying their plane into an innocent Russian (ugg I mean separatist) missile that was just flying along innocently minding its business when it was rammed. We have not learned anything from WWII, if we allow Russia to steam roll over Ukranian sovereignty, while they round up jews( ugh, I mean register them so they can be protected by Putin) and they ignore the rights of homosexuals.

      But if history tells us anything it is that people never learn from history. I will say this for putin, though; he is doing what is best for the Russian people and prestige. Unfortunately the rest of the world is doing what is best for Russian prestige also. We (as in the rest of the world. Not you you are a Russian troll) need to just bend over and take Putin's big dick.

  6. It's very real by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at any site, twitter, instagram, facebook, reddit. If you post something about say MH17 and the information about the Russians being involved, all of a sudden the trolls come out about Ukrainian aggression, whores in Kiev etc. As the TFA indicates, this can create panic considering how hooked people are on Social Media but it'll also be more than anything else, the death of anonymity on the Web. Why? because people on Social Media sites will demand it because of the trolling activities and having to filter through a bunch of propaganda and targeted misdirection.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:It's very real by countSudoku() · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just block the fuckers and stop worrying about stupid shit already. The have a button for that. Unless you WANT to gather these trolls as active followers, then you're all set! Here's a tip; make websites, don't live on them. When you have more important things to do, then Twatter and Farcebook look like what they really are; huge motherfucking wastes of time to people who are creative.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What i don't get is how so many people can be so naive as to not learn from history. There is a reason that the end result of hundreds, nay, thousands of years of history, institutions arose for the credible dissemination of information. Journaled scientific publications came into existence, with well known and visible reviewers. Newspapers that had visible organizations. All this came about because of one basic lesson that people learned: YOU CANNOT TRUST ANONYMOUS PEOPLE! I mean, seriously, how blind do people have to be to believe something said by an unknown person in an anonymous context. Do they understand nothing of human nature? Have they never read a book or learned *anything* from history?

      As for death of anonymity on the web - that would be the greatest step forward for humanity we have seen in a long time, How much abuse do we need to see of internet anonymity before we realize it is not a good thing? The challenge is that one has to get rid of *all* of it at once. When most people are still anonymous, it prevents others from coming forward because of the threats that it poses from all the others who are intent on abusing the internet. So, sadly anonymity on the internet is not going away anytime soon.

    3. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's the weather in St. Petersburg today?

    4. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comrade, if you would actually liked to have some proof of Russian involvement you would have had it 1000 times over.

    5. Re:It's very real by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      I see the score comes down. It means that the trolls are already here. And they try to use their moderator points instead of posting the proof of Russian involvement. And they are not Russian ones.

    6. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am fellow Russian too, Comrade! We are pleased with size of grain harvest, yes? It is good work by Central Planning Committee as usual! MH17 make me sad, though. Murderous Ukranians on our border are like snake living in trousers -- no good! Ok, friend, see you in steam baths!

    7. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just exhaled my Diet Pepsi through the nose. Funniest thing I read in days. Thanks for the laugh.

    8. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holland paid the price you have to pay for being a member of an imperium.

      it was u.s. backed kiev who used tankbuster aircraft against russians.

      russias has the worlds best sams.

      deal with it.

    9. Re:It's very real by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      You mean a woman in SPb that had not received her 30 silver pieces from Putinists for trolling contract? Ha-ha-ha.

      I don't state that Putin's trolls are not existent. I am just tired as [beep] from trolls from the opposite side. You understand that during 1917-2015 we Russians have trained to ignore the propaganda.

      Q: Radio states that there is a plenty of food in Soviet Union, but my fridge is empty.
      A: Feed your fridge from the radio.

    10. Re:It's very real by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 0

      Really I have enough proof of Russian involvement in the conflict: about 5 per cent of rebels are Russian citizens. But I still have no conclusive proof of Russian, rebel or Ukrainian involvement specifically in MH-17. I have only questions, maybe you know the answers?

      1) Why Dnepropetrovsk air control sent MH-17 to the war zone?
      2) What was the UFO seen by Russian air control near the MH-17?
      3) Why nobody has seen a starting BUK? (It weights 1 ton, roars as a hell full of devils and produces a pillar of smoke from the launcher to the target - in daytime and on the territory where every second phone has a camera)
      4) Why the locals told that bodies smelled formaldehyde and had no running blood while cockpit was bloodstained?
      5) There are rumors that there were unusually low number of mourners. Is it true?

    11. Re:It's very real by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      Yes, Comrade.
      Q: Why the Soviet Food Program is named Complex?
      A: Because everything complex consists of Real and Imaginary parts.

    12. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the hollanders were collateral damage in a war of self determnation. tough shit we do not collateralize germans and afghanis...

    13. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only. missing.

    14. Re:It's very real by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Yes, see, the moderation and replies to this post are quite disturbing.

      This troubles me greatly. Internet debate is being shut down on the internet, but not by paid Russian trolls. I have yet to see proof of such things happening on Slashdot, and the article itself largely draws blanks with regards to English-language interference.

      Debate is being shut down by an army of people who automatically assume any position they disagree with w.r.t Russia is held by "non people" and therefore anything they say can be safely ignored. It's basically a modern witchhunt - your opinions look funny to me, so you must be a witch! Burn them! Evidence? We don't need none of that, just look at those opinions!

      Given the fairly direct path between "westerners demonizing Russia" and "war" this is one of the most disturbing things I've seen on the internet in years. Now is the time for people to use the internet to talk to each other and understand each others viewpoints. Instead people in the west are simply sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA PUTIN TROLL CAN'T HEAR YOU".

      Fuck, you know what? As far as I'm concerned, even if there are people being paid to post Putin's views on Slashdot - bring it on! Our media doesn't even try to tell the Russian side of the story, and as the Slashdot poll disclaimer says, you shouldn't be making decisions based on internet popularity contests anyway. I'll evaluate things I read for myself and so should everyone else.

    15. Re:It's very real by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      There actually hasn't been any so far. All you had is punditry from various sides. Dutch investigators specifically avoided releasing any of their materials as to avoid pundits making it worse again. They want a solid case before they publish anything.

    16. Re:It's very real by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Wait for Dutch investigators to come up with the actual evidence and then we will likely be able to have at least something to base . All you'll see before that is punditry.

      Current body of evidence is entirely inconclusive on all points but #1, answer to which is "royalties in hard currency for a highly corrupt state".

    17. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      says the ruskie behind a proxy.

    18. Re:It's very real by Threni · · Score: 1

      Just read the news, from multiple sources. Then when someone defends this or that regime your bullshit detector will kick in automatically.

    19. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just typical view of what the side you are choosing to view.

      I could say the opposites: if you post something about say bad thing about current Ukrainian Gov. and USA's role in RT, liveleaks, youtube, etc., all of a sudden the trolls come out about Russian aggression, whores from Russia, Putler is a gay etc.

      Sorry, your evidence is not strong enough!

    20. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nein.

    21. Re:It's very real by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Well you can listen to the Dutch and the BBC about a little thing called a Russian Buk missile system with photos that was seen in that area of the crash. A Buk isn't a simple system. It's very sophisticated and it takes months to learn how to use it so it's doubtful that it didn't have a Russian crew with it; or maybe that's why the 777 was accidentally shot down by it because of incompetence either way it's linked into the investigation. Of course blaming the Ukranians is of course the easy thing but here's a couple of links out there.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    22. Re:It's very real by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. The separatists captured an Ukrainian BUK when they took over an Ukrainian air base
      2. A BUK has in fact been seen and photographed travelling in the separatist controlled region of the Ukraine.
      3. According to witness reports, a BUK system was moved into Russia the night after the incident
      4. Immediately after the incident, separatists boasted on the Internet they shot down an Ukrainian Antonov
      5. Bellingcat analysis of Russian provided satellite imagery intending to prove Ukraininan involvement have been proven to be fakes

      Meanwhile Russian media has raised all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories trying to obfuscate the incident:
      - A mysterious spanish air controller came out and admitted an Ukrainian fighter plane shot the aircraft down
      - The pilot of the machine was an Ukrainian committing suicide to frame the separatists
      - MH17 was full of corpses to begin with, pointing towards a fucking batshit crazy CIA operation
      - It was an Ukrainian Sukoi
      - It was an Ukrainian MIG
      - It was an Ukrainian BUK
      - It was an attempted assassination attempt on Putin
      - There was an UFO in the vicinity (thanks for that one)

      Seriously man...

    23. Re:It's very real by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you want the proof, it is damn easy to come up with. The problem is that Russians on general are programmed to see everything put out by the West as faked.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      There are a whole bunch of satellite photos of the launchers.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      There are photos of the launchers in Eastern Ukraine, though it is unclear who has them, it is clear that the Ukraine doesn't even own that launcher.

      The rest of your points are Russian propaganda, there was no smell of formaldehyde, that was made up by Russian media. MH-17 was sent to that area because it was a valid flight path, and was used repeatedly before and a few times right after the downing; it was assumed that no one was capable, or stupid enough to launch on a commercial aircraft flying at 30k feet. UFO, more Russian propaganda, please link to any non Russian source of this. Plenty of pics of Buk launchers, the launcher was in the middle of a field controlled by the rebels, so no one who wasn't involved was around to take a picture or video of it actually launching.

      Here's a question for you, how do you explain the recordings of phone calls from the rebels to Russia claiming that it was an accident?

      https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh boy. all your institutions are crooked up beyond repair.

      the internet contains lots of shit but certainly not as finely emulgated as the LUEGENPRESSE.

      when you add your name, have a crackdpwn waiting for you. c.f. mr jesus. mr manning. mr assange

    25. Re:It's very real by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      I'll just point to the twitter account by the rebel leadership proudly claiming they shot down the plane, the numerous Russians captured in combat on the ground, the signals and radiotraffic, the eye witness accounts of the Buk missile system being moved to Ukraine, and the open support by Russia for the rebels.

      Did they hand over missile systems to barely trained rebels so they could use them against the Ukrainian airforce? That's a very likely scenario, given all that's known at the moment.

      However, the inquiry is still onging. I'll wait until the results are out before saying "x did it".

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    26. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at any site, twitter, instagram, facebook, reddit. If you post something about say MH17 and the information about the Russians being involved

      That's mostly people calling you out on your trolling and attempts to distort. there is no information about the Russians being involved because the investigation report has not yet been made public. Nobody knows what the information is, and everything at this point, is speculation. But yeah, Russian trolls, it's like HairyFeet crying "shill" whenever someone disagrees with him.

      I mean, what's Russia's motive to down a passenger liner?
      What's Donetsk's motive?
      Why did Air traffic Control re-route other flights, but send this one through a war zone?
      Who stands to gain from this?
      What of the investigator (a Ukrainian Canadian) who told his story about there being what looked like bullet holes on the hull wreckage?
      Why does it not occur to anyone that Ukraine operates BUKs, too, since 98% of their gear is Russian-made?

      All questions that those bringing forth imaginary information implicating Russia dance around and refuse to answer, let alone ask.

      having to filter through a bunch of propaganda and targeted misdirection.

      You bring up imaginary information that doesn't exist and you have no way of knowing because it hasn't been made public, bt on the other hand, cry about propaganda and misdirection? Fucking hell man, yeah, Russia is using propaganda, but so is literally everyone else, why's it only a bad thing when the "other" does it? Do you not even realize that the whole paid Russian trolls thing is a distraction from the fact that all parties employ the same tactics? Have you never noticed how Western media has just been regurgitating the State Department's line almost in verbatim?

    27. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The separatists captured an Ukrainian BUK when they took over an Ukrainian air base

      Why would ukraine even deploy a BUK that close to donbas when DPR doesn't have any air support? You realize it's an AA system, right?

      2. A BUK has in fact been seen and photographed travelling in the separatist controlled region of the Ukraine.

      There were plenty of photographs, including that of Russian tanks, which were taken elsewhere; Georgia '08 in the case of the tank photos.

      4. Immediately after the incident, separatists boasted on the Internet they shot down an Ukrainian Antonov

      It was neither Ukrainian nor an Antonov. It's funny because the day before, we were told DPR didn't have the capability to shoot down planes at that range.

      Not that any of this even matters until the investigation's findings are made public.

      What motive does donbas or Russia have for downing the airliner? What do they stand to gain by doing so? What does kiev stand to gain? Why are these questions never asked?

    28. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC?

      Hah !!!

      Now THERE'S a well-oiled state-run propaganda machine.

    29. Re:It's very real by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Why would ukraine even deploy a BUK that close to donbas when DPR doesn't have any air support? You realize it's an AA system, right?

      It was in an airbase. It has to be deployed somewhere. I think airbases are one of the spots you might expect to find these things.

      There were plenty of photographs, including that of Russian tanks, which were taken elsewhere; Georgia '08 in the case of the tank photos.

      True. In the end it often comes down to, which sources do you trust? I prefer to trust independent sources like Reuters or Der Spiegel over RIA Novosti, which is controlled by the Russian government. like almost all Russian news sources.

      It was neither Ukrainian nor an Antonov. It's funny because the day before, we were told DPR didn't have the capability to shoot down planes at that range.

      Not until they captured a BUK.

      What motive does donbas or Russia have for downing the airliner? What do they stand to gain by doing so? What does kiev stand to gain? Why are these questions never asked?

      What motives do Donbas or Russia have? None. It obviously hurts their cause while it plays into the hands of the Ukrainian government, depicting the separatists as lawless criminals.
      But the profiteer is not automatically the instigator. Shooting down a civilian aircraft and blaming it on the other side is simply a too high risk endeavor for any establishment to plan it. If the truth leaks out that it was done willingly, you will loose all credibility and legitimacy.
      In this case, the evidence that the separatists shot down MH17 is overwhelming. They didn't plan it and they didn't want it. They thought they were shooting at an Ukrainian military aircraft, and they thought wrong.

    30. Re:It's very real by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Be careful, you might be on the course to madness.

      When it is freezing, and fingers/ears/what-have-you are hurting, you are still probably fine, but after a while hurt no more. For those inexperienced, this feels great, but it is a sign of a frostbite.

      Similar with schizophrenia and hallucinations — at first it gets worse, because you see more and more things that your mind just made up. But after a while it gets better, not because hallucinations are going away, but because hallucinations are perceived as reality.

      Same with propaganda. You might feel like with time you have become immune to its effects (maybe it is really so), but it might as well be the case that you have started to internalize it. Perhaps you will rationally discard every fact that Russian media gives you, but it won't matter, if you start to believe that all the facts that anyone reports are just as trustworthy. If after all the brainwashing you believe that state of Russia is evil, but so is every other state, mission accomplished. There is no right and wrong, only them and us. And you how full well, on which side you stand (za nashim).

    31. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually although I agree with the rest of the comment, I'm not so sure about the first statement.

      1. The separatists captured an Ukrainian BUK when they took over an Ukrainian air base

      Though this is theoretically a possibility and it was reported on media covering the separatist side (before the downing of MH 17), I still think it is more probable that the BUK was Russian origin. This kind of patter was quite common at the time; separatist captured this - now they suddenly have better weapons; separatist captured that - now they suddenly have GRADs and plenty of ammunition; separatist captured that - now they have all the tanks they need and so on. These kind of news seemed to serve the purpose of plausible denyability for any russian aid. I'm quite sure that even if they captured all that equipment - getting it to work and organising all of that would be a big issue. I dont recall pro ukrainian militia having any tanks or Grads.

      There is also the fact that

      3. According to witness reports, a BUK system was moved into Russia the night after the incident

      which is wierd for russia to accept BUK taken from Ukraine that shot down MH17. If it were a russian BUK it would make more sense, though it could happen either way.

    32. Re:It's very real by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      You are right, I realized this only after posting the original comment. According to the latest findings the most likely thing is the BUK was provided by Russia.

    33. Re: It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bellingcat? Are you serious? A website set up by a ladies lingerie salesman who has no scientific training. Ask yourself: who is paying for his 'analysis'?

    34. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 0
      At first, I did not intent to post here (because of moderation system of Slashdot, which is not for discussion like forum, when new post will be hidden, I am a long time reader, but don't have an account).

      But I decide to post for someone like to hear different voices.

      1. Favorite theory was Russia PROVIDED BUK to separatists.
      http://thediplomat.com/2014/07...

      But, when Russia stated that they don't have any BUK-M1, which they abandoned. Ukraine shifted to new theory, separatist captured BUK from army.

      Western media shifted the story also.
      ** Separatists and Russian solders shot down the plane (because, this complex system, only Russian can operate this).

      ** Russians have technology, have experience, they could not be mistaken a civilian plane with military one. The drunk soldiers seem not convinced.
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

      US says ‘no evidence of Russia’s direct involvement’

      ** Russian provided BUK-M1... then captured BUK from Ukraine army. There is also BUK driver "released" from separatists confirmed that (Where is he now??).

      ** No Russian involvement, so how separatist could launch the BUK. New theory:
      http://touch.latimes.com/#sect...

      U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.

      Robert Parry confirmed that: https://consortiumnews.com/201...

      2+3. Unverifiable. Also, fake photo, provided by SBU (Ukraine security agency), which claimed BUK no.312 launched missile downed the MH-17, is still in Ukraine service:
      http://rt.com/news/174868-ukra...
      http://web.archive.org/web/201...
      http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/cont...

      The last photo was **DELETED** (silently).
      The first photo, is interesting too.
      This is the first, and **ONLY** photo which captured the smoke-trail of missile, provided by a pro-Kiev "witness", here some analysis from Dutch blogger (he may be hired by Kremlin, but his logic is interesting):
      http://7mei.nl/2015/05/18/mh17...

      Here some fact:
      * This is the **ONLY** photo about smoke-trail, despite several video from locals capture the moment of the planed burning.
      * The photo was in BMP, no EXIF data (Bellingcats to "protect" the "witness", yes here have contact with pro-Kiev medias, blogger, too)
      * His interviews contradicted themselves.
      * Minor detail, the blogger of 7meil.nl wen to the room of "witness", taken a photo as "witness" described, and there is (electric) wires in photo, not like the "original" photo.

      4. After the incident, locals, in some videos, cheering because they thought government airplane shot down. May be, the separatists think so, too.

      5. Which satellite images!?
      IF satellite images provided by Russian Government after the accident, there not claim that is fake (yet).
      Meanwhile, the satellite images provided by Ukraine Government, to counter the Russian ones, was analyzed by Russians, that was faked

    35. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 1

      Ah, after some "research" I found out what Bellingcat "analysis" is. :D

      Here, you can use google translate:
      http://www.spiegel.de/politik/...

      That dismiss the "seriousness" of "research" of Bellingcat.

      Spiegel is definitely not Kremlin-infected source!

      7mei.nl post counter analysis of Charles Wood, a forensic analyst and researcher from Australia:

      http://7mei.nl/2015/06/01/abou...
      http://7mei.nl/2015/02/02/mh17...

    36. Re:It's very real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some cowards vote down my reply, and then vote up +1 your post!

      Yes, without point-to-point replying, vote down this!

      Well done! Cowards!

    37. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 0
      Forget to login!

      Some cowards vote down my reply, and then vote up +1 your post!

      Yes, without point-to-point replying, vote down this!

      Well done! Cowards!

    38. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 0

      You are correct! I posted a point-to-point replying to allcoolnameswheretak (Score 4: Bullshit). http://slashdot.org/comments.p... Without any counter approach, trolls try to vote down my post, and the parent post of allcoolnameswheretak now be (Score 5: More Bullshit).

    39. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 0

      Wait for troll to vote down this!

      Here in English:

      'Bellingcat Report Doesn't Prove Anything': Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

      Well all the points of the post above is BULLSHIT!

      ...And it deserved voted (Score 5: BS).

    40. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 0
      Bellingcat - Eliot Higgins, who "famous" for "exposed" crime of Assad regime, over chemical attack. If you lazy enough for not searching Google:
      http://www.mintpressnews.com/t...

      The Bellingcat "research" on "fake" sat images released by Russian Gov. which they used http://fotoforensics.com/ software:
      Dr. Neal Krawetz, of fotoforensics.com, commented on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WeBaGeMygh...

      He, finally conclude,

      Yeah... chalk this up as a "how to not do image analysis".

    41. Re:It's very real by guestapoo · · Score: 0
      One more comment form Dr. Neal Krawetz of fotoforensics.com, which software was used by Bellingcats to do their "research": https://twitter.com/hackerfact...

      "distances itself"? Understatement. I had nothing to do with their faulty analysis.

      Only idiot cowards show their fear of truth by down voted!

  7. If you think America DOESNT do this, guess again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're hopelessly naive if you think the US government doesn't employ something similar.

  8. Why does /. only do bits about RUSSIAN trolls? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    I see paid establishment shills on here every day. I'm the 7th or so comment, but this thread will lilely be full of shills complaining about Dice as to muddle discussions about.. well, them.

    1. Re:Why does /. only do bits about RUSSIAN trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barrett?

  9. Dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this essentially a dupe of the story from last March?

  10. In Soviet Russia by clam666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Internet Trolls You!

    --
    I'm a satanic clam.
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I don't think you fully grasp how the Soviet Russia meme works...

  11. Boooooring! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do these "trolls" waste their time with politically-motivated noise and counterposting? They should be funded in an open campaign to force goatse on as many Internet users as possible. And similar nonsense.

    Now THAT would be awesome.

  12. You're Talking About a Different Scale by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just about time to drag the American organized political trolling on sites like reddit, twitter, and tumblr into the open too, right?

    Well, astroturfing is no new tactic but ... I think what this article deals with is scale. 400 clearly skilled (bilingual at the least) individuals running multiple catfish personalities online day in and day out ... the whole thing on a budget of $400k a month? That level and size is probably unparalleled by ... say, Digg's conservative idiots.

    You have one entity orchestrating the 12 hours a day work of 400 individuals on topics that are pro-Russian and tangentially pro-Russian. They are sophisticated enough to "hit play" at a certain time to unfold a natural disaster or assassination or anything to destabilize/confuse a region and they do so over many accounts on multiple social media platforms. They create video, screenshots, websites, etc. And they use proxies and sufficiently sophisticated means to appear to be disjoint at first glance.

    They appear to have run an exercise on a rubber plant explosion in Louisiana for no other discernible purpose than to test out their new super powers or demonstrate their abilities to their customers/leaders.

    Frankly put, I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this. This is paid. This is tightly controlled. This is prepared. This is unified. American organized political trolling is just a run-of-the-mill monkey shitfight with the occasional Koch Bros/Soros website (usually easily sourceable) thrown in.

    Now if you can point me to a faked ISIS attack on American soil right before an election that was done by some political group stateside, I'd be interested to hear about it.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Frankly put, I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this.

      Americans are quick to believe the Official Narrative, no matter how absurd. Mass media is the professional 'troll' that gets people to fight each here.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly put, I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this.

      Americans are quick to believe the Official Narrative, no matter how absurd. Mass media is the professional 'troll' that gets people to fight each here.

      Again, you're conflating two things that are significant enough that I don't see a simple one-to-one comparison here.

      The clear difference here is that the trolls in the article are a nebulous entity whereas the media trolls are not. I know to laugh at Glenn Beck and Katie Couric. I know who they are. I recognize their blubbering stupid talking heads. They're a trainwreck of lies and half truths. On the other hand, you can't stop google from returning search results that confirm what you're looking for. When it's a "trending hastag" on Twitter, you can't figure out if it's legit or not. How do I know that podonski432 on Twitter is the same individual on Youtube named ashirefort posting videos of an explosion is the same person retweeting podonski432 and adding ashirefort's video to their tweet?

      Mass media doesn't employ subterfuge and I sure as hell can stop reading the New York Post & Washington Times & CNSNews & Huffington Post and all that other drivel. I can't, however, identify easily that this account on Twitter is just the new troll account that tricked me last time.

      You do know that it's news if the New York Times is caught lying or spreading known falsities, right? I watched Jon Stewart hold a "reporters" feet to the WMD fire on one of his recent episodes. There's no self-policing mechanism like that among trolls.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a way this is right, trolling and astroturfing are done on the mass media via PR mouthpieces, press releases and advertising.

      I think the difference is that it's so professional and done with such public transparency (ie, you can call the PR office and get mailed a press kit, nobody pretends they're not doing it) that it lacks the kind of nefarious, ministry of propaganda kind of dishonesty that a state-sponsored organized astroturfing campaign has.

      I just don't think those tactics would work all that well within the US. It seems like whenever an organization DOES try an astroturfing campaign ("Citizens for Enhanced Comcast Monopoly") it gets spotted so quickly for what it is that it seems to achieve negative results.

    4. Re: You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      bingo. the trolls of america are fox, cnn, nyt, bbc, ard, zdf, faz, zeit,the economist and the like.

      they enabled the iraq war and isis. they enable saudi terror. they badmouth iran. they spread nuclear horror stories for the benefit of big oil and big war.

      nuclear could threaten oil extraction business, ya know.

      also they did false flag terror attacks in italy and then said it was commies.

      they spread the idea of fucking as many people as possible, never mind stds.

      a bunch of wicked evil, this world.

    5. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now if you can point me to a faked ISIS attack on American soil right before an election that was done by some political group stateside, I'd be interested to hear about it.

      Well, we can get close. US embassies and the like are usually thought of as US soil, though I'm not quite sure how we treat consulates. But when we did have a recent (immediately before an election) planned, coordinated terrorist attack on one (in which a US ambassador was killed, along with three others), the official government reaction was to immediately spin out a transparently phony explanation meant to prop up the administration's campaign narrative about how such terrorists were on the run, and that the attack was actually a result of an insulting YouTube video, and that the locals just couldn't stop themselves from burning and murdering.

      Perhaps I'm parsing that megasentence wrongly but are you saying that Benghazi was paid for by the Obama administration so that ... they would have ... a better chance of winning an election? I'm so confused by your allegations. Look we know the Louisiana explosion was fake. It sounds like you're saying a lot of things about Benghazi that aren't falsifiable. At least not by armchairs like us.

    6. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, uh huh, which is why after how many dozens of investigations run by the House GOP, they've come up with precisely bupkis?

      I mean, if this was *really* half as awful as the delusional right [which controls both houses of Congress...] seem to believe, surely by this point at the very least Obama would've had to send an "overzealous staffer" to fall on their sword by now? Instead, the only political repurcussions occurred after one lucky reporter's shutter captured Romney smirking like a superdouche after trying to make political hay of dead Americans before their bodies were cold, which generally went over rather poorly.

      And hey, at least this time the President kept his eye on the ball and didn't let the perps escape for over ten years.

    7. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not making allegations, I'm explaining what happened. The consulate was attacked by a well armed local terrorist franchise that had carefully planned their evening project. Everyone on the US side new within hours (even as it was happening) exactly what had occurred. The White House certainly did. They then went about a deliberate campaign of lying about what happened, because telling the truth about it would have been acknowledging that a key part of their at-the-time ongoing re-election campaign was their narrative about how exactly such terrorist groups were "on the run" and losing their ability to cause trouble. The event demonstrated that their often repeated campaign talking point was either itself a lie, or reflected a remarkably obtuse/naive understanding of what was happening on the ground in places like Libya.

      The GP was questioning the existence of a US counter-example of what we see regularly in the Russian/Ukraine mess (where Russia blatantly lies about what's happening on the ground, using all sorts of classical methods in their media, including the professional trolls discussed in TFA). I said that we had a close example that we could examine - where something that happened on the ground and was well understood by everyone in defense and intelligence, right up the food chain to the White House, was never the less lied about for weeks in the service of spinning for the imminent election. They sent people like Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton out to deliberately troll, multiple times, in order to muddy the waters and distract from the fact that what happened was taking the fun out of part of their re-election campaign narrative.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That is a very readable paragraph.
      • Terrorist attack US consulate
      • Terrorist kill US embassy personal and US Ambassador
      • US elections upcoming
      • Obama administration puts out fake story
      • Fake story is so bad that only partisan followers believe it
      • Partisan followers include most major US TV networks
    9. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary has one that surpasses this in scope....

    10. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Astroturfing

      Cosmoturfing

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are the one spreading lies. There have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and it has been concluded that "The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."" and "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes." Seriously, let's put this BS to bed.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    12. Re: You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hold anbodys feet to the fire when o spot a liar.

      and yes, made a lot of mistakes, too. read too much zio propaganda, for example.

    13. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      So, when the people in the DoD and the CIA say the exact opposite, and point out that at no time did they conclude or tell anyone that the ambassador was killed by a spontaneous protest crowd, you're thinking ... what, exactly? Weeks afterwards, when the administration was still sticking to that narrative, when every agency with info on the matter was telling them the opposite, you're concluding what, exactly?

      Regardless, you're deliberately ignoring the concluding pages of the report, which point out the administration's culpability in ignoring the safety of the people deployed there, and the unanswered questions about the actions of the administration during and in the wake of the event. The report doesn't address why the administration continued to lie about the event for days and weeks after they had unassailable intelligence showing the nature of the attacks.

      The report does, of course, express the Senate's considerable frustration that the State Department was preventing important people from appearing to testify, and thus preventing inquiry into entire areas related to accountability and the usual who-knew-what-when. They specifically cite a lack of cooperation from the administration, which prevented access to documents, personnel, and the answers to questions they wanted answered. They, the people who wrote the report you're trumpeting, say that political protectionism by the administration prevented discovery of basic facts about what happened before, during, and after the attack.

      In short, the "flawed talking points" they identified were ... flawed. And to the extent that they outlined something known "at the time," we're talking about information that was formally revised only hours later ... not that the administration changed their pervasive lie on the subject for days and days, in appearance after appearance, where they continued on with the YouTube video BS. Something that everyone involved knew was crap before the sun set the next day. But you keep patting them on the back, and ignoring the bulk of the conclusions in the report you yourself trotted out.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem is who are you going to trust. Mass media puts out some truly incredible stuff. After all, it is a tool of the powerful. But, I'm sorry, to "get tricked" by anything you hear on Twitter, Facebook, etc goes a bit beyond the absurd, just at face value of the medium. And really, we all know that trolling is a global enterprise, and that the Americans are probably the best in the business. (Actually, I would put that on the Brits, being the literary giants they are) Notice that nobody wants to believe they might actually outpace the Russians by a long shot. Russians are not known for their subtlety so their work may appear crude and more obvious. Sometimes the people who don't make the news are the more interesting subject. Staying in the background has its advantages.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3

      There is a big difference. The Russian trolls are pretending to be your average Mr. Normal posting on the internet, hiding the fact that they are employed by the Kremlin and spreading Russian propaganda.

    16. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there have been subpoenas for the email records out for literally years, which have been being ignored? That when handing over the email records (finally), Hillary failed to hand over all email records as she was ordered by the investigation to do? When completely stonewalling the investigation, is it any wonder that the investigation is taking forever?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Frankly put, I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this.

      Look at what happenned to Seymour Hersh after his latest expose on how the Bin Laden raid was a joint US-Pakistani operation.

      Within hours, Hersh was personally attacked and his story denied by the "Explainer Journalist" Max Fisher in a transparent and purely-rhetorical smear peice. A 0.5c per hit blogger wrote a hitpiece on a 40 year veteran who broke the Mai Lai masacre and CIA abuses, and suddenly the whole story turned into being about Hersh's personal credibility instead of the revelations about the raid.

      Now why do you think the western media turned so quickly even on such a juicy story? Answer: Shills. Shill who get the "framing" out first, fast, and forcefully shift the story away from powerful interests.

      This is going on more and more and more now and there are fewer and fewer real journalists left to sift out the truth from the lies and PR spin. With the attack on Hersh, we've now reached the point where these professionals are being drowned out by the likes of Sam Biddle and Max Fisher -- a pair to rival any Russian apparatchik.

      The Fourth Estate is becoming a new First Estate -- controllers of public thought. The "fifth" estate is now little more than a propaganda station for hire, and a thoughtleader for the dimmer blubs in old media. Slashdot is unfortunately part of the latter.

    18. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Everyone on the US side new within hours (even as it was happening) exactly what had occurred.

      The CIA disagrees, and the opinion of the CIA at the time is demonstrated by what they actually included in their summary talking points bulletin. That it was a well planned attack was a completely obvious hypothesis, one among numerous competing hypotheses, that was not substantiated by collaborating facts within the time frame you are talking about.

    19. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems like whenever an organization DOES try an astroturfing campaign ("Citizens for Enhanced Comcast Monopoly") it gets spotted so quickly for what it is that it seems to achieve negative results.

      Not when it is framed as an *Exciting new customer experience at lower than low prices that only we, with our grand national infrastructure and 5 billion channels, can provide*. This is why Comcast already enjoys its monopoly it holds now.

      This stuff is all over the place. Somebody just got named. And who knows? With this Ukraine thing, there's plenty of propaganda flying in both directions. Some people on this side have a war to sell. And the fact is that our wars were sold to us by professional "trolls", precisely through mass media. Sounds pretty nefarious to me... Definitely state sponsored astroturfing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the official government reaction was to immediately spin out a transparently phony explanation...

      Hold on a second! Now you're taking about 9/11 and Afghanistan/Iraq

    21. Re: You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had this german sniper on wired.com for a long time.

      looks as if the little guy has a chance to put sand into gears...

    22. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      You're just being partisan.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re: You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hersh was not wearing camoflage and they crucified him.

      did he not read about jesus ? pros dont expose...

    24. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 1

      It's true that the Russian trolls get paid. I'd say that's less impressive, considering that the American schooling system and media are programming their trolls from a young age to do it for free.

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    25. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, uh huh, which is why after how many dozens of investigations run by the House GOP, they've come up with precisely bupkis?

      Patience grasshoppah. The left is becoming less enchanted with Mrs. Clinton by the day. They would rather have the socialist from Vermont or Fauxahantis. The fact that Mrs. Clinton engineered the sale of 20% of our uranium reserves to the Russians for hundreds of millions in "donations" the Clinton Cash Laundry is not going away. Soon the "lost" e-mails about Benghazi will come to light then the best she can hope for is a pardon from the Anointed One.

    26. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're just being partisan.

      You're right. Sending out Susan Rice to lie to reporters in an attempt to spin a completely preventable horror show at the consulate so as to prevent it from further tainting an upcoming election ... that's party-neutral. It's pointing out the lies that's partisan, right? Yeah.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      400 clearly skilled (bilingual at the least) individuals

      You didn't read the article, did you?

          "Ass had a puerile sense of humor and only a rudimentary grasp of the English language."

      They appear to have run an exercise on a rubber plant explosion in Louisiana for no other discernible purpose than to test out their new super powers or demonstrate their abilities to their customers/leaders.

      And failed, apparently. What super powers are you referring to?

      US authorities have been historically much more successful in influencing public opinion. Take for example the
      2003 invasion of Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction.

    28. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And American trolls are modding the GP down...

      No message being sent there, no siree! Propaganda at its finest!

    29. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You pick and choose which lies to point out and which ones to believe on a strictly partisan basis, so yes, that is partisan. It is a statistical certainty your reaction would be entirely different if your chosen party was in charge.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    30. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful ScentCone, the IRS is now looking at you.

    31. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by edis · · Score: 1

      ... 400 clearly skilled (bilingual at the least) individuals

      What made you think, they are bilingual, or they are skilled at large? The point was, that majority of them are stupid. Only thin elite is bilingual. While majority of their production screams dumbness for any slightly intelligent observer. Thus, they are recognizable, and separable in general, can be well washed out, when the flow of information remains enabled.

      Yes, they can be orchestrated into impressive campaigns, as illustrated. But they got a problem: you already know how they do work, you even seen where from they work, what are methods to clarify them, who are the people actuated, where the strings go, what interconnections exist. One such campaign has to be arranged and coordinated with significant preparation, while its effect is not warranted to be of big impact.

      The main thing is: when you have KGB person at throne, you have to prepare appropriate attitudes.

      --
      Servant of karma
    32. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this ...

      Really! It seems 90% of the 'Small government' and 'Stop socialism' activism, the 'Defend my freedom' (meaning 'Support my anti-authoritarian hypocrisy') activism, is pro-corporate propaganda. I haven't checked but a prime example is the Koch brothers: Check what think-tanks and superPACs they fund to see corporate speech, political trolling and character assassination in action.

    33. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now why do you think the western media turned so quickly even on such a juicy story? Answer: Shills. Shill who get the "framing" out first, fast, and forcefully shift the story away from powerful interests.

      Or maybe, just perhaps, just possibly, he was spewing obvious bullshit and got called out on it? Just a thought.

    34. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Feel free to pop into any of thousands of posts and show me where someone with whom I'm more philosophically aligned has sent someone out to do a stint of serial lying on a matter of plainly obvious fact (a la launching Susan Rice at the weekend talk shows, or Hillary repeating the same stuff days after she's been briefed on details that explicitly illustrate the exact opposite) - upon which I excused/approved. Specifics, please.

      But in your imagination, I have? THAT'S how you make it more comfortable, somehow, to process the pre-election BS we're talking about, coming out of the current administration? "I don't like you, so I suspect you'd approve of other people I don't like lying, and saying so while using phrases like 'statistical certainty' is, no matter how lame, the best thing I can think of to try to distract from the administration's campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying on the topic at hand." THAT'S your argument? Very nice.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    35. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The CIA disagrees, and the opinion of the CIA at the time is demonstrated by what they actually included in their summary talking points bulletin.

      No, the CIA reported on outside-the-embassy protests elsewhere, and made some conjecture along those lines in the hours immediately following the event. They (and the FBI, and DoD) briefed the White House (and thus State) on the reality of the event (a planned, organized event run by well armed, hardened militants) not even 24 hours later. But for days and weeks afterwards, the administration continued to try to sell the "It's all because of this vile video, see..." fairy tale. Why? Because that deliberate lie was a better fit with the campaign's "the terrorist are on the run" narrative. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    36. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I can't go far enough back to provide links, but you have given complete credence to Bush's lies over the wars, and lot more than four Americans are died for those lies. I can only imagine the support you gave Reagan over Beirut and Iran/Contra, but I can be certain you weren't nearly so critical. Your facade is translucent at best. You are just here repeating meme after meme... Pretend all you want, you don't know what happened in Libya, much less why it happened. We all get the same press releases. All the lies are just part of the business. You are only making a big deal out of it because of your opposition to this particular faction. You decry the actor and not the act, very typical of you people.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    37. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by jblues · · Score: 1

      Ah, every Murdoch owned newspaper has these fabricated Mr and Mrs (usually Mr, funnily enough) Normals dominating the comments section. One of the main ones in Australian is even called 'Hacka' - as in Social Engineering Hacker.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    38. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I just don't think those tactics would work all that well within the US. It seems like whenever an organization DOES try an astroturfing campaign ("Citizens for Enhanced Comcast Monopoly") it gets spotted so quickly for what it is that it seems to achieve negative results.

      Russians aren't idiots, they simply think things will get better if they pretend to believe the lies and let their country and its leaders engage in one immoral act after another - just like Americans, or really anyone. And their reward is the same, too.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    39. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thing goes back a long way. The British certainly did it to try to influence US public opinion during both world wars by manipulating the conventional media. But the Brits had the twin advantages of being native English speakers and being subtle by nature. I don't think much of their agitprop was detected as such at the time.

    40. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      you have given complete credence to Bush's lies over the wars

      Which lies? His trusting (just like, say, Clinton did) what the CIA told him about the status of WMDs in Iraq? As in, the same CIA that you are now saying we should trust as the source of the initial sloppy talking points, re: the consulate attack in Libya? Or are you referring to lies about whether or not Saddam was blocking inspections, shooting at patrolling aircraft, continuing to traffic in weapons he said he wouldn't, continuing to kill large numbers of Kurds and others not in his tribe, defraud the UN and skim billions of aid money, and so on? Oh, right, those things were very real, weren't they? Just like Saddam's UN-observed mountains of VX gas, some of which he used to slaughter thousands of people. Yeah, yeah, just lies, I know.

      I can't go far enough ... I can only imagine ... I can be certain

      Uh huh. OK. Did you learn this rhetorical strategy in debate club?

      Pretend all you want, you don't know what happened in Libya, much less why it happened.

      Let's see ... you're willing to tell everyone else what happened (by selectively quoting part of a report, while deliberately ignoring the parts you don't like) based on a legislative report, but you're not willing to even address the fact that multiple intelligence and defense officials were on the record describing the well armed and organized nature of the consulate attack while the administration's flacks were still going to the press with the phony video protest theater. You're backing them, here. So, you've concluded that the hours-long assault with motors and machine guns was in fact an ad hoc gathering of protestors? No? You're saying I don't know what happened, but you're saying you do, even though people on the ground there describe events completely at odds with the phony video protest story that even the administration eventually had to admit was not what happened.

      You are only making a big deal out of it because of your opposition to this particular faction.

      Right. I find that this particular faction's deliberate lying about the event in order to influence an election was reprehensible. You're OK with it, since you like the administration.

      You decry the actor and not the act, very typical of you people.

      The two can't be separated. The actor (Obama) committed the act: deliberate misrepresentation, for weeks, knowing full well his people were lying about what happened. All in a vain attempt to avoid being challenged on their fictional campaign narrative about Terrorists On The Run, what with an election on the calendar, where he was making that fable a central feature of his stump speeches (you know, along with ISIS being the "JV team," etc).

      You're comparing one president (and the majority of the democratic legislators, including the liberal front runner in the current cycle) who read, processed, and repeated what the intelligence community concluded about Iraq, to the current president who had his people continue to lie after being told that what they were selling was - as was known and officially conveyed to the White House almost immediately - wholly incorrect. Pure fiction. But, you're sticking with the liars on this one, because you like them. At least admit it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    41. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Which lies? His trusting (just like, say, Clinton did) what the CIA told him about the status of WMDs in Iraq?

      See? There you go, reciting press releases. No, he lied. Try to get that through your head. These people lie to get what they want, and depending on their affiliations, you may or may not believe them. And you have made your alliances perfectly clear. You are just, being, partisan, tribal really. I know nothing will change, so carry on.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    42. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. The key for the western propagandists is to highlight certain stories, tell half truths, and leave out context. in the long run, incredibly dishonest, but not on the same level as manufacturing completely fake information.

    43. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Your argument is with the CIA, which simply failed to put forth your purported "facts" to the State Department or White House, within hours or within 24 hours. That is the fact based historical record. I cannot prevent you from pretending otherwise, if you insist. But you are simply, provably wrong. If you care about such things as reality, that is.

    44. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up! Another example is Bush's involvement in 9/11. The White House KNEW about it well in advance, and had explosives planted on the WTC towers to make them collapse after the false flag "terrorists" (who were really Saudi Arabians) flew the planes into the towers! Yet this has been covered up for over a decade! Maybe Benghazi will make Americans wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!

    45. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and Bush/Cheney did the exact same thing when 9/11 was found to be their plot to start the Iraq War. Keep their feet to the FIRE, buddy!

    46. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one being partisan. He's pointing out that both Clinton and Bush believed the CIA's reports. You say we should believe the CIA report on Benghazi, but only because it supports Obama.

    47. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nope. Wrong again. I'm not saying to believe anything.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  13. This is serious by koan · · Score: 2

    General "Buck" Turgidson: We can not allow a troll gap.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  14. Lets keep facilitating this by MouseR · · Score: 1

    Lets keep facilitating this by keeping unregistered anonymous account postings.

    1. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What's your plan? Demand a license to operate a computer on the internet? Censorship is not the answer. I can tune out the trolls. Maybe that is something to teach the kids in school.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rarely post by my user name ~amightywind because I have been modded into oblivion by the leftist echo chamber here on slashdot. The differences between me and Putin are that I am a right wing American nationalist and a dedicated amateur.

    3. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good plan. No one would ever think to register a throwaway email address and use that to establish an account on a website.

    4. Re: Lets keep facilitating this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hes a hero and any non bankster shill must like him. everywhere.
        admit it.

    5. Re: Lets keep facilitating this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of a Driver's Ed style course in school that could encourage young minds to think critically and fact check. Build up those reference materials and online edicit to educate our way out of this.

    6. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Obviously there will be some that will register with throwaway emails but it's at least a deterrent for the occasional trolls that just comment for the sake of leaving negativity behind.

      I moderate a small car-oriented forum and when we locked down posting to registered members, it cut the spam a great deal. We still have a great deal of bots registering accounts but given email verification requirement, only about 1 a week makes it through and ends up posting one or two messages before one of the mods delete the trash.

      When you have to use your (or some kind of) identity (regardless if it can be pinned to anyone in particular), it usually makes people think twice before posting.

    7. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to your ten-bux hugbox fascist. The internet doesn't want you anymore.

    8. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, you are running a private club. But in public forums, especially those associated with mass media, news, politics, whatever, anonymous postings are a necessary and valuable element. The best ones still allow it. (a nod to Slashdot) And besides, well written trolls are a plus. Anything that forces people to think... Right now most beliefs are based on the appeal to authority and distrust on the ad hominem.. Anonymous posting permits none of that. All that is left is the message. Identifying the messenger serves mostly as as distraction.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a leftist...Slashdot isn't my echo chamber. Odds are you either have batshit insane political views (like lots of people here) or have no good idea how to express them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re: Lets keep facilitating this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such is true.

    11. Re:Lets keep facilitating this by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      You are failing on the reading comprehension here, buddy. This is far more involved than a couple of AC posts These organizations use registered accounts, including personae that they build up over months. Unless you want to go to verified, real name posting you aren't getting away from this kind of manipulation.

  15. It is much wider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are already here on Slashdot for many years - just look for the comments - most common would be that US is also trolling what is a lie as the size of Russian trolling is orders of magnitude larger than anything any Western government has done.

    It is also already spread internationally - there are dozens of Russian trolls operating in Baltic countries, Germany, Poland, Ukraina, Italy.

    1. Re:It is much wider by halivar · · Score: 1

      I don't get too angry about Russian astroturfers on Slashdot anymore than I do the telemarketers that call me up when I'm trying to eat dinner. I can't imagine the job being any more fun, either. But it is sad.

  16. Read this by microbox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read Trust me, I'm Lying -- it is a book by a self-confessed media manipulator who got depressed and left the industry. He worked for an apparel company. One example tactic was to take sexually explicit photos of porn stars, and then complain about said photos to feminist groups. And then: OUTRAGE!!!

    The story of ACORN is a perfect example of how media manipulators manufactured a scandal -- literally creating reality for movement conservatives -- in order to shut the group down. To this day, some GOP congress critters are unaware that ACORN is defunct. The interesting thing is, the more outraged a person is (politically), the easier they are to manipulate. It is all rather ironic.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Read this by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Attorneys General of several states, various government agencies, and a couple of independent analysis all agreed that the original videos show no indication of what you called "really ad things." The journalists even admitted their wrongdoing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    2. Re:Read this by sideslash · · Score: 0

      What you're saying is technically true, and is true of all sting and entrapment operations. What we saw in the videos was technically not ACORN facilitating crime, because the undercover persons were only posing as criminals. And since there was no crime, nobody was prosecuted.

      ACORN was still defunded/shamed out of existence., and this was perfectly appropriate. It's the same as with DPR and the Silk Road -- Ross Ullbricht thought he was hiring hit men to commit murders, but because it was all fake, he wasn't prosecuted for those specific actions.

    3. Re:Read this by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Read Trust me, I'm Lying -- it is a book by a self-confessed media manipulator who got depressed and [...]

      Especially read the Amazon comments about that book, including the one that claims that right there on the Amazon page are patterns of manipulation of reviews and ratings of the book that suggest he is cynically trying to manipulate people to make a pile of dollars, and hasn't actually:

      [...] left the industry.

    4. Re:Read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to trust you when you can't even get a simple quote right, you know.

      They were perfectly willing to facilitate child prostitution and slavery on camera. You try to defend against that by linking to Wikipedia instead of making any actual argument. Which is no way to make an argument, because for all you know, that page might be a copy of goatse right now.

      How much are you getting paid to make this argument?

    5. Re:Read this by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Let me just copy/paste the relevant bit here then.

      "The California Attorney General granted immunity to O'Keefe and Giles in exchange for their raw videos shot at three California ACORN offices. Its comparison of the raw videos with the released versions found that the published videos had been heavily edited to misrepresent the workers and the situations so as to suggest criminal intent and activity."

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    6. Re:Read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the more outraged a person is (politically), the easier they are to manipulate ...

      Why wouldn't they be? I remember an episode of 'Family guy' where Brian becomes infatuated with Rush Limbaugh. As Lois explains, Brian is looking for a cause to channel his self-importance into. I think political (and moral) outrage is self-importance inflated to 'the world owes me' narcissism but is disguised as "I'll save you" activism.

    7. Re:Read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same California Attorney General's office that is supporting the 250 Orange County prosecutors that were banned from a criminal case over decades long fraud, suppression of evidence, perjury, and collusion with police to manufacture evidence and railroad criminal with paid-for "confessions"?

      That California Attorney General's office?

    8. Re:Read this by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Don't feed the troll. This goes especially for AC trolls.

      He attacked me personally "how much are you getting paid" When you pasted the quote he wanted, he does an unsupported ad-hominem against the state of California.

  17. Ironic that such accusations should come from NYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nearly the whole corporate media in the United States might be regarded as government trolling, and the government as a wing of big business.
    Slashdot is beginning to look like an anti-Russian propaganda website these days. The Russians are small timers, compared to the kind of wall-to-wall propaganda you see in the United States. I have been there, and every time I visit, I'm pretty shocked. Compared to even the corporate media in Europe, the level of propaganda is is shocking. Sure there are problems here to. In Britain for example, around 6 individuals own over 80% of the media. This is corrupt, but at least there doesn't seem to be the level of nationalist propaganda that you see in America. Nationalist regimes like the one in Washington are dangerous. In Europe, we have direct experience of this, both from the fallout from deranged US foreign policy, and earlier this century from nazi Germany.

  18. Don't forget slashdot by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's just about time to drag the American organized political trolling on sites like reddit, twitter, and tumblr into the open too, right?

    I've often wondered about certain comment threads on slashdot. Framing certain actions as "hijacking the conversation for propaganda purposes" seems to hit the Bayesian priors higher than just "a lot of people really feel that way".

    The conversations attached to Uber articles are weird, not at all what one would expect.

    The recent one about California raising the minimum wage was suspect: affecting roughly 2.4% of wage earners, you would expect posts like "has no effect because costs are passed on to consumers", "raising everyone's wages make costs rise to compensate", and so on to be roundly debunked by the first person to google some numbers.

    It's worse around election time. In a presidential election year, about 6 weeks beforehand we start to get framing posts - some of which are quite insidious. "I agree with him on *that* issue, but everything else he stands for is batshit crazy". It seemed like every response to a Ron Paul was that way: his immediate position is OK, but it puts the "batshit crazy" idea into people's minds with no supporting evidence.

    ...and it's starting to happen for Rand Paul as well.

    Then there's the visibility-massaging techniques: posting an opinion that's not *quite* right just to get people to respond so that text further down gets pushed below the fold where no one can see it. Posting a definition that's not *quite* right so that people argue the definition back and forth and avoid the core issues, and of course modding things down.

    I sometimes monitor certain posts and see them modded down... only to see them modded up a few hours later. That indicates to me that there are people trying to promote an agenda with the moderation system, but get overruled by the general population.

    In addition to participating in the conversation, take a step back and look at the overall context of the conversation some time. Instead of just responding, think about the reasoning behind *why* the person made the post that they did.

    It is sometimes quite enlightening.

    1. Re:Don't forget slashdot by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, sorry, the Pauls take great positions on one or two issues and the rest of them are batshit crazy. That's a reflection of reality, not a conspiracy theory.

      That said, I might actually vote for Rand, because I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back to the other end of the spectrum for a while. Not all of the changes will be for the best, assuming he manages to make any, but we really need to take a break from the national security/world police routine.

    2. Re:Don't forget slashdot by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Swing in the other direction? It's been right of center for a long time.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:Don't forget slashdot by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Er, I think what you are observing is just called debate. People disagree with you about Uber? No conspiracy theory needed for that - perhaps your views about what other people think just aren't as accurate as you had believed. Rand Paul? Likewise.

      There have been delusional people with nonsensical arguments on the internet since the internet was invented. As with terrorism, this recent rise of "you disagree with me thus you must be a secret government paid sockpuppet" is by far more damaging than anything paid trolls could actually do by themselves. It ends debate and closes people's minds. They can rest easy without having to be troubled by arguments that suggest they may be wrong, because ZOMG RUSSIA! Where by $RUSSIA you can of course substitute almost any government, as if there's one thing Snowden showed us it's that the idea of western exceptionalism on the internet is pretty naive.

    4. Re:Don't forget slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the federal government keeps getting bigger, how the hell has it been to "the right" at all?

  19. It's not just the Russians by MagickalMyst · · Score: 0

    Western governments pay people to troll as well.

    Just read the comments section of any mainstream news media site. It's pretty obvious.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:It's not just the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Just look at the comments here. People here love the Bush Crime Family and support them almost religiously. They constantly spew-out posts about their love of the Bush. This site is so CONservative. So CONservative. Most of the posts here are about hate. Hate. The Republicans have ruined this site.

    2. Re:It's not just the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where can I apply for this job, or was that outsourced too?

  20. Blame America first by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Four years ago the article said: "The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda."

    There is not a more recent update as to what has become of that software development effort. But we do know, that in 2011 — when the article you are linking to was talking about America's evil plans in future tense — Russian government's Internet-propaganda machine was already up and running:

    A Russian journalist who visited one such comment-mill, the St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency, met with a coordinator who said the job was not unlike writing copy for a hair dryer: "The only difference is that this hair dryer is a political one."

    Let me guess, USSR's Lavrenty Beria was a normal reaction to America's Joseph McCarthy in your opinion too?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Blame America first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four years ago the article said: "The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda."

      Cold Fjord's ears are burning.

    2. Re:Blame America first by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

      Let me guess, USSR's Lavrenty Beria was a normal reaction to America's Joseph McCarthy in your opinion too?

      Our Lavrenty Beria was a curator of Russian nuclear project while your McCarthy was a politician and investigator ONLY.

    3. Re:Blame America first by mi · · Score: 1

      Our Lavrenty Beria was a curator of Russian nuclear project

      Obviously, as head of KGB — because your nuclear project had as much work for your spies as it did for scientists.

      My point, however, was that Beria antedated McCarthy by decades. (That he is also responsible for thousands of dead , whereas McCarthy can only be blamed for a few scores having lost their jobs, went unmentioned.)

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Blame America first by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      "The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda."

      "Gentlemen, we've given the prototype the codename 'Bennett Haselton.' At present it is capable of trolling up to 3.5 pbps across over a million sites at once."

      "My god! Are you sure you can even control such a monster?!?!?"

      "We're confident that our safeguards will hold and that it will not escape into the general internet."

      "But what if it DOES? Can you even IMAGINE what could happen???"

      "We're confident that our safeguards WILL HOLD."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:Blame America first by mi · · Score: 1

      Gentlemen, we've given the prototype the codename 'Bennett Haselton.' At present it is capable of trolling up to 3.5 pbps across over a million sites at once.

      +1 Funny, but Bennett is posting in English, whereas the article linked to by the AC above mentions, that the military's 2011 plans explicitly excluded English because that could violate the ban on government propaganda used on Americans: "none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology".

      Russia, of course, has no such inhibitions and most of its trolls post in Russian — to be read by Russian-speakers inside and outside the country. Finding Russians capable of properly posting in English is about as difficult as finding Americans to post in Russian. Worse, Russians who have the sufficient command of a foreign language tend to be able to find better employment. In fact, the article about these trolls, that I read earlier, contained lamentations about how bad their Russian is too...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Blame America first by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      In fact, the article about these trolls, that I read earlier, contained lamentations about how bad their Russian is too...

      For a job as an Internet Troll that would probably be counted as a benefit.

    7. Re:Blame America first by mi · · Score: 1

      For a job as an Internet Troll that would probably be counted as a benefit.

      Huh? You must be thinking of sincere volunteer trolls trolling for fun. That's not, whom we are discussing here. These folks are hired to spread the "party line". And to a recipient any message seems more convincing, when expressed well and by someone, perceived to be a person of quality.

      The article I read (itself in Russian) mentioned a older man hired by the "troll-factory" to help improve the language and grammar of rank-and-file workers — and how depressingly difficult he found his job to be.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Blame America first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four years ago the article said: "The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda."

      There is not a more recent update as to what has become of that software development effort. But we do know, that in 2011 — when the article you are linking to was talking about America's evil plans in future tense — Russian government's Internet-propaganda machine was already up and running:

      A Russian journalist who visited one such comment-mill, the St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency, met with a coordinator who said the job was not unlike writing copy for a hair dryer: "The only difference is that this hair dryer is a political one."

      Let me guess, USSR's Lavrenty Beria was a normal reaction to America's Joseph McCarthy in your opinion too?

      I'm learning Russian at the present time and I can tell you, it's blatantly obvious who the Russian govt internet trolls are on various forums and social media sites. Sadly, we have exactly the same sorts of trolls on the US side. Spend any time at all on a site that discusses Russia, it's culture or language learning/politics and you'll be able to spot them from a mile away... They make outrageous (and obviously false) claims, have the vast majority of their posts focused on anti comments with a few sprinklings of spammy type music video or pinterest style posts. They have TONS of friends, but no interactions with any of them. And yes, they exist on both sides... it's not exclusively a Russian tactic.

      Interestingly, the same sort of people (accounts) can be found on various comment sections of political articles and postings within the U.S. You can interpret that how you like...

    9. Re:Blame America first by HiThere · · Score: 1

      A few scores and mass intimidation, and that's probably still an underestimate. But that's still minor compared to Beria.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Blame America first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Ivan.

    11. Re:Blame America first by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      The best crowd control is the one that doesn't stay out from the crowd, yet it can steer the flock.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    12. Re:Blame America first by rezme · · Score: 1

      Not to mention setting the stage for today's "ZOMG SOCIALISM" hysteria...

    13. Re: Blame America first by OklahomaRed · · Score: 1

      Everyone just doing their job.

      Red

  21. Nyet by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nyet, everything excellent in Russia, all American disasters real and American. Giant plume kill 1200 people in Louisiana city of New Orleans. Work of imperialists. American CIA responsible, deaths cover up. Real! Contact me at agent0@kremlin.gov for more big news.

    1. Re:Nyet by jj1981ua · · Score: 1

      Axiom Cole. The total amount of intelligence on the planet - is constant, and the population is growing. it seems most of these people in Russia. Typed with Loderi.com

      --
      the problem is that if you think you have time
    2. Re:Nyet by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Puti boy, for $30 more per hour, I can re-write this to not sound so cheesy and fake to yankee ears.

  22. Now I know by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    Now I know why machines with Russian IP addresses so consistently try to break into my Wordpress sites. Two of three of those sites are in the formative stages and have almost no content. Russian professionals will provide, da?

    1. Re:Now I know by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      If your [write your blogging platform name here] site can be broken into - you should blame the authors of the blogging platform and it's OS, not us Russian hackers.

    2. Re:Now I know by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Russian hackers not succeed. Yet.

      I use the excellent "Wordfence" plugin, and it tells me these things. It also locks out IPs that fail at too many logins. So hacker gets botnet. But maybe Wordfence itself is Russian hack - nyet?

  23. They studied in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no doubt that they studied here in the US, and probably hang out here.

  24. Only Putin Can by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    I for one thinking only best great Leader Putin can for with saving our global societies.

    1. Re:Only Putin Can by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      While he wrestles a bear without a shirt on?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  25. Re:If you think America DOESNT do this, guess agai by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Isn't this quaint--a post acknowledging the clear and present fact of paid trolls on slashdot, being marked as "troll" by those same paid trolls.

  26. Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish we could get this kind of coverage in US press over scams like the fake Sandy Hook school shooting.

  27. forgive English, I am Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i come to study Mechanical Engineering at American university. i am here little time and i am very hard stress. i am gay also and this very difficult for me, i am very religion person. i never act to be gay with other men before. but after i am in america 6 weeks i am my friend together he is gay also. He was show me American video game and then we are kiss.

    We sex together. I never before now am tell my mother about gay because i am very shame. As i fock this American boy it is very good to me but also i am feel so guilty. I feel extreme guilty as I begin orgasm. I feel so guilty that I pick up my telephone and call Mother in Russia. I awaken her. It too late for stopping so I am cumming sex. I am very upset and guilty and crying, so I yell her, "I AM CUM FROM SEX" (in Russia). She say what? I say "I AM CUM FROM SEX" and she say you boy, do not marry American girl, and I say "NO I AM CUM FROM SEX WITH MAN, I AM IN ASS, I CUM IN ASS" and my mother very angry me. She not get scared though.

    I hang up phone and am very embarrass. My friend also he is very embarrass. I am guilt and feel very stupid. I wonder, why do I gay with man? But I continue because when it spurt it feel very good in American ass.

    1. Re: forgive English, I am Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slow day in langley, eh ?

  28. Done by most governments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except usually it's the mainstream media misinforming people in the west ;)

    This is just the new generation of lying to us all - and the power elites of everywhere are either doing it, or wish they could. Just how our governments operate and they really need to be reminded they work for us.

  29. FOX news much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this any different?

  30. Trolls do dis-service to Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, that once a great state that Russia was, has turned itself into the rotten wastebin of humanity nurturing hidden neo fashist scumbags that are trolling even Slashdot in droves. Obviously Putin's paid trolls did a great dis-service for Russian nationals and Russian media. Nobody is going to believe any pro-Russian opinion for decades to come, associating Russian opinion with North-Korean type of ideological lies, even if sometimes they would try to speak some truth. Poor Kremlins, even their beloved Blatter had to resign today. What a disappointment for Putin's troll factories, what a waste of money.

    1. Re: Trolls do dis-service to Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah. SPONSOR OF ISIS. get ready for circumcision by your mohammedic allies.

    2. Re:Trolls do dis-service to Russians by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      Neo-Fashists? There are NO neo-fashists in Russia. Half of them decided that Russians are "Mongolo-Katsaps" with spoiled genetics and must die. This half went to Ukraine to fight against Mongolo-Katsaps and for European values. The second one decided that their Russian people and Russia is Aryan and Uber Alles and went to Donbass to fight against the first part. So even the Russian neo-nazi sites have been closed. And while I hate Nazism I know both sides fight quite heroically.

  31. Gig 7 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    These well-paid agent provocateurs are dedicated to destroying the value of the Internet as an organizing and political tool.

    Cool! Where do I sign up?

  32. Re:If you think America DOESNT do this, guess agai by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    Well, I see your message modded to -1. Basically it means that not only Ukrainian but US trolls spend here moderator points, too.

  33. Foundations of Geopolitics by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    Foundations of Geopolitics details a plan including riling up the riff raff in the US.

    This book's author is supposedly âoeone of the chief ideologists of the [Putin] Kremlin,â

    --
    ...
  34. Re:If you think America DOESNT do this, guess agai by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    They're probably past it, considering the original story on US moving to automated software to do this was published back in 2011.

    Russia is way late if they're still using people for everything instead of automation.

  35. Care to explain that? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    As with terrorism, this recent rise of "you disagree with me thus you must be a secret government paid sockpuppet" is by far more damaging than anything paid trolls could actually do by themselves.

    I'm just pointing things out and asking the question. Your response seems to be "In my opinion, it's not so".

    I posted specific examples so that people could discuss the issues and point out problems with the conclusion. Several, in fact.

    You took the most vulnerable example and framed it in a "conspiracy theorist" context, and used it to frame the entire position.

    That's fine, it's a good use of rhetoric, but it adds nothing new to the conversation other than "in my opinion...".

    Would you care to formulate a response with examples and/or references that explain *why* raising the question is more damaging than anything the sock puppets could do?

    Because looking at the chemical plant explosion hoax and Acorn hoax would indicate ro me that sock puppets can have an enormous negative effect on public opinion and government policy.

    Acorn was brought down specifically to stop its voter registration drives, which is on its face an attack against the freedom of democracy.

    It's really, *really* hard for me to see how "be careful of sock puppets" can rise to that level of damage.

    Care to explain?

    1. Re:Care to explain that? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I posted specific examples so that people could discuss the issues and point out problems with the conclusion. Several, in fact.

      None of your examples support your thesis. I've been reading and posting to Slashdot for 15 years. People posting "an opinion that's not *quite* right just to get people to respond" is pretty much the lifeblood of Slashdot, how else would you test out ideas and discover they were wrong? Heck, in another story I'm getting my ass kicked right now because I didn't know that light American aircraft had registration numbers visible from the ground. Other posters are setting me straight. Yet I do not work for some shadowy organisation.

      Your other examples are equally bizarre. People posting that they think the Paul's have a few good ideas and lots of crazy ones? That's not an organised conspiracy, that's just ..... a common viewpoint! One that was even mocked and made fun of in the last story about Rand Paul I remember reading.

      You took the most vulnerable example and framed it in a "conspiracy theorist" context, and used it to frame the entire position. That's fine, it's a good use of rhetoric, but it adds nothing new to the conversation other than "in my opinion...".

      You're the one using rhetoric! I didn't take "the most vulnerable example", I picked one at random because they're all equally ridiculous. Why exactly would any government or paid trolling operation even care about Uber?

      And yes, if it's not clear, my reply said in my opinion you are sounding kind of crazy and appear to be giving in to paranoid delusions. Your position is: they don't disagree with me because they think I'm wrong. They disagree with me because there's a vast shadowy conspiracy to undermine me, Okian Warrior, and my world view, using subtle powers of rhetoric!

      Occam's Razor says that, maybe, Uber is controversial and politicians like the Paul's tend to have many different views, with which few if any people agree completely.

      Because looking at the chemical plant explosion hoax [wikipedia.org] and Acorn hoax [wikipedia.org] would indicate ro me that sock puppets can have an enormous negative effect on public opinion and government policy

      What change to government policy did the chemical plant hoax bring about, exactly? And what effect on public opinion? Your link provides no backing for this assertion. It seems like the hoax was nothing more than a bizarre timewaste, given the triviality of phoning the chemical plant and discovering it was not on fire.

      If you really can't see why "be careful of sock puppets" is damaging, just go browse further down this thread. There's an example of a guy who says he is Russian asking for evidence that Russia shot down the jet liner. And literally EVERY reply except mine is on the lines of, "go away paid Putin troll". That kind of thing shuts down debate and closes people's minds.

      What's more - there's nothing you can do about it. So what if some people are being paid to post to Slashdot? What's the worst they can do, exactly? Say things you don't like to hear?

  36. Re:"stunning expose"? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    this good post comrade. deny, derail, and diminish.

    we will spill the ketchup onto the french frys and salt the plates to make those capitalist pigs our bacon for breakfast!

  37. Re:If you think America DOESNT do this, guess agai by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It likely is a paid troll comment. Pointing out that others do it so you doing it is ok is very poor thinking. Things that are not ok don't suddenly become ok just because others do the same thing.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  38. Not much diff, actually by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    My plutocrat can beat up your autocrat!

  39. That's silly by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    You're essentially claiming that it's in the best interest for US government trolls to out themselves as existing here on slashdot. Or maybe you're claiming he's a russian troll, just because he's stating the obvious? That's absurd, especially given how pro-russia trolling is virtually nowhere to be found on this site.

    And "you doing it is ok"? How is that even relevant when the guy was posting as anon?

  40. Stanisaw Lem predicted this in 90's by kosmosik · · Score: 1

    I've read Stanisaw Lems essay predicting it in late nineties. The essay was published in a polish "PC Magazine" and then released as part of collection as "Bomba megabitowa" which was also released in English:

    http://www.bookinstitute.pl/ks...

    1. Re:Stanisaw Lem predicted this in 90's by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      Sorry it wasn't translated to English - my mistake.

  41. Few words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you lying Rusky motherfuckers. Fuck you. I have something for you, if you step over the border. I sure as hell do.

  42. So now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We get modded down as Russian?

  43. Re:If you think America DOESNT do this, guess agai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things that are not ok don't suddenly become ok just because others do the same thing.

    Pointing that out, while only condeming the latter, thus implying that it's okay for the other parties to do it is even poorer thinking. nice try though.

    Things that are not ok don't suddenly become ok just because others do the same thing.

    And the other's don't get a free pass. condemn both, or neither.

  44. How NSA agents infiltrate the Internet by nickweller · · Score: 1

    'One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

    I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.'

  45. US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by Rujiel · · Score: 2

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/... But let's not kid ourselves: the domestic propaganda has been going on since before 2013. If you think our government actually follows the law in secret, i have a bridge to sell you.

    1. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by mi · · Score: 2

      But let's not kid ourselves: the domestic propaganda has been going on since before 2013.

      Citations? Given how enthusiastically US media supports the party currently in power, I doubt, you'll find any.

      Not until there is another regime-change and dissent becomes patriotic (rather than racist) again.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      I got plenty of citations

      Military Announces New Social Media Policy (Feb. 26th 2010)
      http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com...
      "Many months behind schedule, the Department of Defense on Friday issued a new policy that, on the surface, seems likely to expand access to popular social networking sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter by troops using military computers."

      Well, that's pleasant, but.. just how "expanded" has the "access" been?

      Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ( March 17th 2011)
      Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech...
      "A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world."

      Convinced yet? Want to explain why US contractors had an active online social media presence in 2011, if they couldn't make money off of it?

      Propaganda programs hard to justify, Panetta says
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      "USA TODAY found that the owners of the top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan, Leonie Industries, had failed to pay $4 million in federal taxes on time despite earning more than $200 million in contracts from the government. Their tax bills were paid after the story was published.

      Shortly after USA TODAY made inquiries about the tax bills, fake Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as phony fan club websites, were set up to disparage USA TODAY reporters. The co-owner of the company, Camille Chidiac, admitted to setting up some of the sites but said he did not use company resources in doing so. He had been suspended from receiving federal contracts because of the campaign, but the military lifted the suspension late last year."

    3. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by kupekhaize · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't be the first time the US government has made a deal with Britain, Australia or one of the other Five Eyes for these kinds of arrangements.

      Hey, Britain.. we can't do this to our people according to our law, and you can't do it to your own people, but there's no law saying we can't do it to each other and then turn over the results, wink wink.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      --
      One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
    4. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by mi · · Score: 1

      Facebook and Twitter by troops using military computers

      That seems to be for the troops' recreation and communications, not propaganda.

      Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities [...] http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech...

      That's the same article, that the AC above linked to, while making an allegation I rebutted. Your description of it is misleading — at the time it was written, the software did not exist. Only the contract to develop it is actually asserted as existing. Moreover, that is the article, from which I quoted the following: "none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology". You are citing that same link again to "prove", that "US audiences" were targeted after — and even before — the law banning the practice was abolished? Wow...

      phony fan club websites, were set up to disparage USA TODAY reporters [...] Camille Chidiac, admitted to setting up some of the sites

      So, it was not done by a government program, but by one guy — seemingly at the behest of one private tax-evading company. And he got punished for it...

      Slim pickings — your earlier bold claim, that "the domestic propaganda has been going on since before 2013" is not supported... At all.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      That seems to be for the troops' recreation and communications, not propaganda.

      Because I'm so sure that the military's top priority with enabling its workers to use facebook is so that they can trade cat pictures with their relatives, rather than spread the "information" their employer needs them to spread. Who do you think you're kidding?

      Remember that the military put out an effort to secretly recruit bloggers back in 2008: http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

      Again, all the way back in 2008, the military was throwing money at web propaganda outlets in other languages, under phony names: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... The websites suggest a pattern of Pentagon efforts to promote its agenda by disseminating information through what appear to be independent outlets, says Marvin Kalb, a fellow at Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

      Yet, even further back in 2006, US Central Command publicly stated its efforts to "engage bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information".

      http://www.defense.gov/news/ne... "We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement," Flowers said. "The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience."

      But clearly when he says "people", he's talking about non-US citizens, right? Try to find some evidence of that in the entire article. Go ahead.


      The notion that the US government was somehow *new* to web propaganda even in 2006, even compared to the Russians, is absolutely absurd. Just as blogs were targeted by the military after coming into vogue in the mid 2000s, using social media was the obvious next step. What "propaganda programs" do you think Leon Panetta was referring in that previous USA today article, that they wouldn't involve Americans? Especially considering the military propaganda budget was 580 million dollars by 2012: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      That's the same article, that the AC above linked to, while making an allegation I rebutted.

      You didn't "rebut" anything, you simply mentioned that the Russians also had active propaganda programs, and that we don't know "what has become of that software development effort". I really love the way you tried to turn the thread back around to being about the Russians, even though that wasn't being discussed, and you just wanted an excuse to use that news link. It's very telling that you're more worried about Russians propagandizing to you than your own government.

      The article specifically said that a 2.76 million dollar contract was awarded to Intrepid for their sockpuppet software. It would be incredibly naive to think the military threw down the money and forgot about the effort, especially considering their other web propaganda efforts (above) are evidenced at least back through 2006.

      The article also mentioned "It would not disclose whether the multiple persona project is already in operation or discuss any related contracts." I'm sure you, in your neverending puppydog trust of our government's good-will, could only take that to mean that the programs were discontinued.

      If you think the DoD would encourage its workers to use social media, and would not be willing to utilize sockpuppet software it had already paid for on Americans--at the very least after 2013 when this sort of propaganda is now technically legal!--you're more naive than anything else you've said thus far could possibly let on.

      So, it was not done by a go

    6. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by mi · · Score: 1

      Because I'm so sure that ...

      Your suspicions are not citations. Next.

      Remember that the military put out an effort to secretly recruit bloggers back in 2008: http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

      Bzzz! A lie! The article makes no mention of "an effort". It only describes a discussion within the military, on whether such recruitment might be a good idea. Paying such bloggers — the way Russia pays its trolls as discussed in TFA — is a separate topic too.

      This is the second time in this very thread, that I catch you misrepresenting the contents of the links you are offering. So I am not interested in continuing the discussion, liar.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      Your suspicions are not citations. Next.

      Actually if you'd read beyond the first five words, you'd see that I'm actually making fun of your assertion that the use of military social media accounts is for the servicemembers' own jollies rather than propaganda.

      So that "suspicion" you're denying was actually your own absurd implication. I know sarcasm is hard, but come on bro.

      Bzzz! A lie! The article makes no mention of "an effort"

      You're right, it was actually the article right after that from 2006--two years before--that detailed the actual effort, straight from the horse's mouth. My bad! The 2008 article instead details the planned creation of fake blogs to spread propaganda. Decent writeup here:

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

      dun let the door hit ya on the way out.

  46. Kill Political Discourse, Undermine Democracy by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

    This makes a lot of sense. Think of a site like Politico. You would think the country is filled with people who think that either Obama is a Muslim communist, or that George W was a warmongering moron trying to bring about the second coming. Most discussion boards end up devolving into a giant troll pit almost immediately. No matter what the topic, the Fox News and John Stewart crowds go for each others' jugulars, very often with no context to the article they are "commenting" upon.

    One of the promises of the Internet was that it could be a town hall, a place where people from a broad swath of geographies and backgrounds could hold discourse in a public forum. Clearly, it hasn't worked out as well as it should have. We have a bunch of morons who aren't looking to debate, but to diatribe. A little nudge here, a little nudge there, and a clever trolling operative could make sure that any serious venue for political discourse quickly descends into rubbish. Troll-fed apathy develops, informed democratic involvement nosedives, which contributes to grid-locked government and a country in decline.

    Are all, or even most, of the USA's problems because of foreign trolls? Of course not (plenty of home-grown corruption, poor education, etc.). Nonetheless, it seems like a cost-effective way to undermine democracy, taking advantage of free speech to encourage peoples' worse tendencies.

  47. putin by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    and here I thought there were just tons of random idiots clamoring for the taste of Putins cock. (j/k russian shills are obvious as fuck wherever they go)

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  48. What if... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    ...the real troll is the NYT article ?!?

  49. Neale Stephenson by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    "The trolling attacks described within are mind-boggling -- they sound like the basis of a Neal Stephenson novel as much as they do real life."

    So it's all going to end up like Wacky Races?

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.