Slashdot Mirror


Russian Online Trolls Resist The Light

Rick Zeman writes: Since the beginning of the public Internet on Usenet and now following on comment boards worldwide, live the trolls, the online creatures dedicated to stirring up trouble with their versions of online flaming, fact-twisting, and overall being a menace to online society. Russia, by paying state-sponsored trolls, has elevated the troll to the level of professional propagandists spewing the party line. In neighboring Finland, a country again precariously balanced between Europe and the Russian bear, Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro's investigations have opened a new front in the (dis)information war (Warning: source may be paywalled) where "'There are so many layers of fakery you get lost,' said Ms. Aro, who was awarded the Finnish Grand Prize for Journalism in March," reports the NYT. All because "A member of the European Union with an 830-mile-long border with Russia, Finland has stayed outside the United States-led military alliance but, unnerved by Russian military actions in Ukraine and its saber-rattling in the Baltic Sea, has expanded cooperation with NATO and debated whether to apply for full membership." The NYT article explores many of the actions that the Russian propagandists use to keep Finland out of NATO, and some of the more indefensible ones directed personally at Aro. She says, "They get inside your head, and you start thinking: If I do this, what will the trolls do next?"

128 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously? by barcarolle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there any person reading this who genuinely believes the United States doesn't engage in exactly the same behavior, if not worse?

    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there any person reading this who genuinely believes the United States doesn't engage in exactly the same behavior, if not worse?

      Doubt what? That the US Government has thousands of morons on their payroll trolling the internet? I'm sure they do, in the form of Government employees doing it on their spare time but I rather doubt that the US Govt. is paying them overtime to sit at home at night to troll Russian websites.

    2. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regular american citizens are still indoctrinated from cold war propaganda, they don't need to pay anyone to "troll", they do it naturally through their ignorance.

    3. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could you point to some of the propaganda that we're "still indoctrinated" by, or are you a Russian troll?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    5. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I don't think the US government does that at a big scale (but there's enough precedent with COINTELPRO, so I'm sure they're doing some of whatever -- not on global warming).

      The Koch brothers, OTOH...

      I agree with many here that given the choice US vs Russia, Russia currently wins hands down in the evil department. Still, as Westerners it's our fucking responsibility to take care of the weaknesses of our own system first and foremost. After all, we elect those goons into office.

      Pointing at Kim Yong Un and shouting "but he is eviler!" is childish and lets us forget our duty.

    6. Re:Seriously? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not a big scale? The Pentagon propaganda budget is a quarter of the NASA budget FFS

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Not a big scale?

      Now that's an interesting data point. You have a ref?

      How much of it goes to undercover online shills (I gues it'll go through "consultancy firms" and other difficult to track PR agencies who do the dirty work for them.

      How could one go about to quantify that?

    8. Re:Seriously? by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

      Yes - I do not believe the US has a large scale internet forum troll brigade.

      We just have a fuckton of morons that are willing to do it for free.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    9. Re:Seriously? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re: Seriously? by Morgon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could you point to some of the propaganda that we're "still indoctrinated" by [...]?

      Sure - one of the biggest examples is the pervasive (and perverse) idea that the United States is a 'Christian' nation. During the Cold War, Eisenhower injected references to God in paper currency and our own Pledge of Allegiance, specifically to "unite" the country against the much-overstated Communist 'threat'. This has resulted in several generations of state and federal laws that illegally reflect 'Christian' doctrine, and several generations of people who support it and believe that's the only way it should be.

      Only recently has society been able to start loosening that grip and begin the path to becoming the nation we were intended to be.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    11. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Well, there are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence. The founders were all Christians of one variety or another. (http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/god-and-the-constitution.html) "In God we Trust" dates back to 1812. The freedom of religion, Christian or otherwise, is a core value. The fact that the Soviets were anti-religion (not just anti-Christian) and pushing that upon all of the east-bloc nations, is hardly propaganda, it was a simple fact...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re: Seriously? by Morgon · · Score: 1

      The 'God' of 1776 is a lot different than what you think of now. In those days, "God" was simply the name for a creationist power, whether it be the abstract power in Deism (which a number of our Founding Fathers were, to refute your claim), the meddling God of Christianity, or whatever in between. In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor (much like the word 'marriage').

      The freedom of religion IS a core value, which makes these specific Cold War actions of the United States just as terrible as the Soviets.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    13. Re: Seriously? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The founders were all Christians of one variety or another.

      They were also Freemasons. Does that mean the worship of Baphomet is a core value of the United States?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Well, as Cold War veteran, from '76 to the end, I'll dispute your claim. There may have been something to it in the 50s or 60s, but not on my watch. There was little to no push for Christianity, and only minor mentions of the Soviet push against religion.

      I'll confess (not that I'm into that) that I knew nothing about Deism, and was relying on the line:
      "Some had turned away from orthodox Christianity to embrace Unitarianism or Deism, liberal strains of Christianity that stressed reason and free inquiry over revelation. Others adhered to more traditional forms of the religion."

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Way to take it out of context.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re: Seriously? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Don't you guys have to pledge allegiance to the flag/country every day in school? My first hint to Americas true nature was when classmates had to go to school for a while in the States and came back with horror stories about the indoctrination. Along with all your anti-freedom laws (lots in the '60's), lack of following your Bill of Rights etc leads to the conclusion that America is a subtle totalitarian state, which figures that giving the people the choice between Coke and Pepsi means freedom, even if 7UP is illegal.
      Follow my sig for a description of inverted totalitarianism.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    17. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, the 13 colonies were largely founded by Puritans and Protestants fleeing religious persecution in Europe.

    18. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Not sure that qualifies as Cold War propaganda. There have been numerous legal cases regarding removing the "under God" portion, but nobody else seems to complain much about the remainder of the pledge. I believe some places allow kids to opt out.

      So, here's my $.02. I personally don't care about the "under God" or lack of a deity reference. But I don't have a problem raising children to pledge allegiance to the country that is providing them with an education. They're welcome to have whatever belief system they wish (witness nearly any college campus), and try to change the system, or even leave if they dislike it so much. I don't think anyone here is trying to claim the U.S. has a perfect system, in fact I'd argue that we're far from perfect. But of the roughly 50 other countries I've been to, I haven't seen one I'd prefer over our system.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re: Seriously? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      You are totally insane

      >Only recently has society been able to start loosening that grip and begin the path to becoming the nation we were intended to be

      Mass surveillance.

      Stuff yourself down the incinerate chute.

    20. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Your definition of propaganda is fairly unique. I'm pretty familiar with what it is, having lived in several countries and traveled to dozens more. If you'd like to discuss one other than this, that's fine, but it's what I'm referring to...

      1.
      derogatory
      information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
      "he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"
      synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin;

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    21. Re: Seriously? by Whibla · · Score: 1

      In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor.

      Not for everybody, but I suspect you'd have been right if you'd said most people conflate the term 'God' with only aspects of the Christian faith.

      You make a couple of very good points though.

    22. Re: Seriously? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Four in the declaration - and zero in the constitution, unless you count the date. Religion is only even referenced twice: Once to forbid religious tests for office, and once in the first amendment.

    23. Re: Seriously? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Kids can opt out in any school. It just serves as a signal for the other kids to beat up the traitor after school.

    24. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not a good solution. Where my kid went to school, they sent us a list of class subjects that parents could opt out of for their kids...mostly sexually related. While I didn't opt her out of any, I could certainly see it being stigmatizing having to leave the room in front of the other kids. They need a better method.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    25. Re: Seriously? by Morgon · · Score: 1

      Nice context shift. I was speaking specifically about society and law shuffling off the constraints of organized religion and how those parts of the nation operate, it was not an exhaustive review of our entire government.

      After you.

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    26. Re: Seriously? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The pledge opt-out is used by a few religious groups. The Mormon church used to prohibit taking the pledge, but doesn't any longer. The Jehova's Witnesses still do. I'm not clear on the theological grounds, but the JWs have their share of horror stories. Children and teenagers have always loved to pick on those who are different from the group, and refusing to take the pledge marks onesself as an outsider and thus a target for bullying and abuse. There's one case that became quite infamous when a class teacher, Anne Daigle-McDonald, was so offended that one of their students wouldn't take the pledge they physically grabbed the student to force them into the correct pose and informed the class that any student who wouldn't take the pledge should move out of the country. The parents had to threaten legal action to get the teacher suspended - and there was such an outpouring of support from local patriots for the teacher that they were given a slap on the wrist and returned to teaching five days later.

    27. Re: Seriously? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I forgot about the under God part, which just takes it to another level considering the 1st amendment. Opting out just led to a beating from what I heard and the idea of indoctrinating kids sounds like something from Soviet Russia. Perhaps your fine with removing freedoms from children that way but I'm not. It's part of the hypocrisy of America which changes it from not a bad place to a place where the people have been indoctrinated much as those countries that America traditionally hates.
      I've also met a fair number of American political refugees over the years, never a good sign when people have to sneak out of their country and claim refugee status to not be sent back and jailed, and just today I heard an ad aimed at people with dual citizenship and how they better be careful as the Americans will take their money that was earned out of the country and just how hard it is to actually renounce it. I can easily renounce one of my citizenships if I so choose and am only responsible to my country of residence.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    28. Re: Seriously? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Well, now I'm gonna state that I think you're stretching the truth in a few places.

      1. I highly doubt that you've ever met "a fair number American political refugees". Let me rephrase that. They were more likely to have committed a crime, and fleeing prosecution, and making the claim that it was for "political" reasons.... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

      2. Dual citizen or not, Americans abroad have long been required to pay taxes on money earned overseas. Myself included, which I did for over 12 years. It's hardly just taking their money. There's a rather large "Foreign Earned Income" exclusion, which exempts about the first $100k of income. https://www.irs.gov/individual...

      3. Renouncing citizenship isn't difficult. What could be an issue for someone is if they're trying to do so to escape debts, taxes owed, or military service. This is from the State Dept's site:
      E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION
      Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. Shills =/= trolls by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The meaning of troll seems to have been lost. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are trolls.

    The latest trend being ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A TROLL! TROOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

    1. Re:Shills =/= trolls by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thank you.
      Trolling is supposed to be a(n) art, not just being an asshole.

      But I fear this is a lost battle. The common folk have appropriated the word and now their definition of it is inevitably going to be the primary one. We're just going to have to come up with a new word for intentional artful tongue-in-cheek inflammatory speech.

    2. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, I think you're right. Those should be called shills. But if they're worth their salt (be they working for Putin or Monsanto), they do troll when it's appropriate.

      Sometimes it's about pushing bluntly your customer's POV, but most of the time it'll be about derailing a conversation with some stupid hot-button issue (Aaah! systemd!) or even representing the opposing POV in such a dumb manner that the more intelligent counterarguments get drowned in the noise. And here trolling is a very handy tool.

      This behavoir (by Kremlin, or by companies) is really abject, because it poisons human relations and puts a burden on our communications, which are pretty difficult as they are.

      They're pissing in the commons, ant thus in our mouths.

    3. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Sibko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Worse yet - there are people who honestly believe that the western countries and corporations aren't doing the exact same thing.

      This isn't a problem coming out of Russia or China, it's a problem coming out of every authority group or special interest. FFS Slashdot has used the terms FUD and astroturfing in reference to Microsoft (and others) doing this exact shit for YEARS.

      Pointing the finger at Russia/China is a nice way of deflecting the same criticisms leveled at the US government and corporations.

      Can't shut the internet down, can't easily censor speech, next best alternative is to fill it with noise and propaganda so that no meaningful discussion can take place, and this problem is only going to get worse as chatbots and AI become better adapted at faking human communication. These groups have a strong understanding of human psychology and they will use every possible trick in the book to manipulate the public at large.

      Frankly, I don't think Russia or China hold a candle to what the US is able to do.

    4. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't a problem coming out of Russia or China, it's a problem coming out of every authority group or special interest.

      Agreed.

      However, at the same time this rhetoric itself is at the core of the Russian propaganda: essentially the message is 'since the US does it, we can too"

      As a Finn I've engaged in a lot of discussions with both Russians and my fellow countrymen about the situation in Russia ever since Crimea, and this comes up quite frequently from the pro-Russian side. If you try to talk about the annexation of Crimea and how it's worrysome they throw 'Iraq'-card in your face. Nevermind that we had nothing to do with Iraq, and that despite the fuck-up and unjustified nature of the war in Iraq and for all their incompetence, the US still did not add Iraq as a new state.

      From this, it's not a long way to the idea presented by some in the Kremlin that countries simply cannot want to be in NATO for the sake of their own security. Like, if an unallied country at the border of Russia looks at the recent actions of Russia towards other unallied border states (first Georgia in 2008, then later in Ukraine/Crimea) and concludes that it's safer by allying itself with someone other than Russia, then it obviously must because of Washington and the corporate illuminati controlling the popular opinion and seeking to threaten Russia, despite the fact that the risen interest in military co-operation is a direct result of their own actions. This is of course intentional. All authoritarian regimes need enemies, and to Russia it's 'western values' (ie. gays and sexual deviance primarily) from within and NATO from without. To help achieve this they treat the whole of Europe as a unified block ('the west') that's nothing but an extension of the US when it suits them, basically telling us Finns (and Ukrainians) here that we cannot have an opinion of our own, unless we agree with them.

      They want to keep and even increase the tension because that's a convenient trick to distract people from the failings of their domestic policies and the rather dismal state of their economy, pretty much fascism 101 stuff. And the fact that in some sense the US is doing the same with the war on terror, war on drugs etc does not make it okay, or justifiable.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    5. Re:Shills =/= trolls by jcdr · · Score: 2

      Great post. Please mod up.

    6. Re:Shills =/= trolls by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      These guys are way beyond mere shills though. They don't just post in support of their government, they actively harass anyone who disagrees with them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but as much as Microsoft's shilling can be annoying, Russia is on a completely different level. Microsoft's shills and FUD are there to push the competition out of the way, which is unethical but that's about it. Russia's shills and trolls are attempting to cover up war crimes, to rationalize invasions, to justify Putin's homophobic policies, and they will go as far as harrassing and threatening people to do so. I frankly doubt Microsoft's astroturfers would call Stallman in the dead of the night and shoot a gun over the phone, but that's what Russia's zombies are doing.

    8. Re:Shills =/= trolls by shilly · · Score: 2

      Thank you. False equivalence seems to be the norm on this thread. I can't work out whether it's stupidity or malice.

    9. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      The meaning of troll seems to have been lost. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are trolls.

      The latest trend being ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A TROLL! TROOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

      Hence me putting "...has elevated the troll to the level of professional propagandists" in the headline.

    10. Re:Shills =/= trolls by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the beauty of text forums. You can just skim over the "harassment". While it does consume bandwidth, the problem is not intractable. After all, we are intelligent beings, right?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Shills =/= trolls by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      FFS Slashdot has used the terms FUD and astroturfing in reference to Microsoft (and others) doing this exact shit for YEARS.

      No. FUD is not inherently corporate. That can come from anywhere. Astroturfing is, by definition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Israel would be a better counter-argument than Iraq, per Crimea. We didn't sanction Israel for swiping land, unlike Russia, and in fact give them various forms of assistance.

      That being said, two wrongs still don't make a right. Land swiping is land swiping and those who do/support it are jerks. May God/Matrix-admin spank all 3 of us.

    13. Re:Shills =/= trolls by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Trolling is supposed to be a(n) art, not just being an asshole.

      Meep!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    14. Re: Shills =/= trolls by shilly · · Score: 2

      You say potato, I say fuckwit.

      Someone FUDing for Microsoft won't pick up the phone and fire a gun next to it to scare off an iOS fanboy. That is a difference in kind, not degree. Hence, false equivalence.

    15. Re:Shills =/= trolls by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      I see opportunities.
      Only the best baiting will be named masterbaiting.

      Variations in the form of probaiting, rebaiting and debaiting are all allowed.
       

    16. Re:Shills =/= trolls by axewolf · · Score: 1

      thanks for drawing attention to the most important problem in the world for most people.

      Can we take this opportunity to admit that Slashdot is a willing outlet for propaganda and that it could stand up for itself but doesn't?

    17. Re:Shills =/= trolls by qaz123 · · Score: 1

      >> the risen interest in military co-operation is a direct result of their own actions.

      It's vise versa. As a result of Kiev "revolution" of 2013, pro-NATO forces came into power in Ukraine. That's why Russia took actions.
      Same with Georgia, where pro-Nato president came into power after color revolution in 2003.

    18. Re:Shills =/= trolls by drunkbot · · Score: 1

      (Russian is here.) It would be interesting for me to see how Americans would react if some military block would be getting closer and closer to their country borders (Cuba, Mexico etc.) convincing everyone that it is just self-defense. This is what NATO does while seeking the ways to put another dozen of new bases across Europe ostensibly building the shield against Iranian, Iraqian, North Korean etc. missiles. If Russia hadn't reacted the way it did in Georgian and Ukraine then I'm sure we could have seen new NATO bases in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea.

    19. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Then clearly, from the two above, we could adopt / co-opt the term 'Master Debater' for the elegant ones, the ones that are true to, as you perceive it, their original intent.

      I'll accept any suggestions as to a term for the inelegant ones...

      Wait, hasn't this been done before?

      Perhaps we should call them 'ReCursives'.

    20. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Apparently the Russia apologists also have a lot of mod points today...

    21. Re:Shills =/= trolls by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2

      Worse yet - there are people who honestly believe that the western countries and corporations aren't doing the exact same thing.

      Yes, and they'd be more right than wrong. Does the west engage in propaganda? Does the west engage in marketing? Does the west try to suppress news and thinking that isn't to their liking? Yes, to all the above.

      And that's not what we're talking about. What Putin is doing is an a whole other scale and akin to brain washing (if you spoke with an "average" Russian, like I have, and learned what they're told and what they actually believe, your head would explode...), where the people aren't allowed to freely discus matters that Putin decides shouldn't be discussed and aren't even allowed the very tools (access to facts, analysis and opinions) to do so. Dissent is met with a bullet to the head. And that's not an anomaly. Check out the world press freedom index. With Finland taking first place, the US still a respectable 41:st, and mother Russia at 148, out of a 180. If that doesn't summarise what we're talking about I don't know what.

      So, like the Finn said. You're playing exactly their game; as they're quick to point out "so what, you're not perfect either". No, we're not, but we're so much better that we're not talking about the same thing any more. Only in the black and white world of absolutist Russia and their ilk, does "no one is perfect" translate to "so that means we're all equally bad, and mine is as good as yours". Nope. Not true.

      Look, while I have problems with the state of many things in the USA, and I'm sometimes very vocal in my criticism, it is at least a system that can be criticised. As is eminently illustrated by the relative success of politicians like Bernie Sanders. In Russia he would have been forced to shut up, have gone into exile, or dealt with. These are not two systems and states of affairs that should be compared, and demed "equal". They're worlds apart.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    22. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Funny, that isn't the history people outside of Russia have heard.

      By August 1, 2008, Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region. Following these deadly attacks, Georgia began a full-scale military operation in the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August,[40] taking control of most of Tskhinvali in hours. Georgia later stated it was also responding to Russia moving non-peacekeeping units into the country.

      Russia accused Georgia of "aggression against South Ossetia",[40] as well as "genocide" of thousands of its people,[41] which was later proven to be false.[42] With the stated aim of "peace enforcement", Russia officially launched a large-scale land, air and sea operation against Georgia on 8 August.[43] Russian and Ossetian forces battled Georgian forces throughout South Ossetia for four days, until Georgian forces retreated. Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge held by Georgia. Russian naval forces blockaded part of the Georgian coast. This was the first war in history in which cyber warfare coincided with military action. An active information war was also waged during and after the conflict. On 12 August, President of France Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated a ceasefire agreement.

      Perhaps you should learn to better troll, you might get a pay raise out of it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    23. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If those countries were willingly entering into a military cooperation agreement, the US would say nothing. As it is fear of Russian aggression that forces these countries into the waiting arms of NATO, you only have yourselves to blame for it. If you would stop invading other countries, you wouldn't be losing so many of your border countries to NATO.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re:Shills =/= trolls by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny how the US rebuilt Iraq, and handed it back to self rule, while Russia still holds Crimea.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Trolls incoming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A good troll breaks tedium, adds flavor and annoys wusses.

  4. Obvious trolls are obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We get them on slashdot too, but they're very obvious. That's what mod points are for, and any forum that is disrupted, needs to consider Slashdot's mod and meta-mod as an option.

    EU is probably doing more harm by highlighting the troll to public figures, where those public figures otherwise would never read the troll or give it credance, they're hyped into tackling a threat of free speech, best handled by ignoring it.

    A lot of this is not about Ukraine, its about Putin. If Putin was popular he wouldn't be invading neighboring countries, so the best way forward is to continue to expose Putin's corruption / the rigged election, fix TOR to protect the free speech of Russians etc.

  5. Re: US uses a supercomputer by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Troll recursion.

  6. Everyone does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course Russia would ry and influence public opinion. Finland is a direct neighbour. And they're certainly not the only ones. China does it, Europe^Wthe EU does it, even the USoA does it. Sometimes overtly, sometimes less so. Sometimes subtle, sometimes less so. Sometimes even naked threats, innit, mr. Cameron?

    So yeah, nothing surprising here. If you're honest you don't try and spin it like a scandal story, like you're a SJW or something. Because if you do that you're really lying to yourself: This isn't extraordinary. It is much more useful to scetch the scene matter-of-factly, so that everyone knows what is happening and how.

    1. Re:Everyone does it by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do you mean by "even the USofA does it"?
      http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Everyone does it by cryptolemur · · Score: 1

      Of course Russia would ry and influence public opinion. Finland is a direct neighbour.

      The odd thing in this case is that great majority of the Finns do not want to join the NATO. Only one in five actually would like to join, so the less they influence the public opinion, the better. Provided that the aim is for Finland to remain outside of NATO.

      Frankly, the cynic in me wonders if this (article) is an attempt to reframe the discussion in a way that it's more difficult to oppose joining NATO, " 'cause only Russian trolls do that"...

    3. Re:Everyone does it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Schrodinger's Cheshire Cat. If nobody looks, it isn't there. It is the response that makes the troll larger than life, or even visible.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Everyone does it by jopsen · · Score: 1

      China, Russia, yes... EU, US, please provide some evidence.
      Oh, and we didn't really know that Russia did it before it was proven.

  7. There are so many layers of fakery you get lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is the point. In a word where you cannot control the population by controlling the information supply anymore, you just pollute the well so much that it becomes unusable for anyone, except for those having the knowledge, time and resources to filter out the shit.
    On any non-trivial subject that is not average Joe. He (make that 'We' ...) has really only one option, and that is to decide who he trusts based on completely unrelated, and possibly also incorrect, data.

    The US elections are another prime example of this.

    1. Re:There are so many layers of fakery you get lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He (make that 'We' ...) has really only one option, and that is to decide who he trusts based on completely unrelated, and possibly also incorrect, data

      I think this is the one advantage of established old media, especially print media, even if it is on line. You knew the providence of the organisation giving you this information to some extent. It maybe full of complete lies, but you know who is saying them and have a good chance at understanding why they are saying them.

      Take Murdoch controlled news outlets, they range from heavy handed right wing stance (Fox news) to much more subtly right wing (Many of the higher brow "broadsheet" print media outside America). They are all designed to appeal to different audiences, but push a right wing message, and most importantly exist to give Murdoch power. With the last point, it doesn't matter what Murdoch media actually say or if it is even true or not, it is important to look at who external to news limited is benefiting from it. And if someone is benefiting, especially a politic entity, your next question should be "what was the pound of flesh they had to pay for that?".

      Even a full on dictatorship style state sponsored propaganda news paper, well you know who is behind it and can at least use the disinformation to understand the underlying motivations of the media controllers.

      With this type of disinformation via social media etc. it become very hard to track who is responsible, and figure out why they are doing it.

  8. Re: Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Euros are not much better informed (am one), and Americans are no better than Russians.

    We (europe) need to cut the shit with both of you and build independent European defences.

    I view both as equal threats to European countries. I'm further from Russia than our suomi buddies though.

    Our American friends have their peculiarities but I'll pick the USA to be my ally over the Russians any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Just about the only thing that would make me rethink that attitude is if Trump gains the presidency and even then only if he actually does what the is currently saying he will do (which I doubt). That's how much worse Russia is than the US.

  9. EU vs disinformation by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    This link(EU vs disinfo) was burried deep in the story, but is rather interesting, though it is unfortunate this particular service only targets pro-Kremlin disinformation.

    This one story though can apply anywhere: Three classic "disinformation recipes" put to use

    1. Re:EU vs disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That "anti-disinfo" project lools like EU trolling, just with a slightly different name. The difference between Russia and the ridiculously corrupt Bruxelles institutions is that the latter don't even deny their own trolling, they just call it "counter narrative" or something like that: http://www.politico.eu/article...

      However, luckily it doesn't seem to be very effective, given the EU's sinking popularity among its own (unwilling) citizens: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus...

    2. Re:EU vs disinformation by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      That "anti-disinfo" project lools like EU trolling, just with a slightly different name. The difference between Russia and the ridiculously corrupt Bruxelles institutions is that the latter don't even deny their own trolling, they just call it "counter narrative" or something like that: http://www.politico.eu/article...

      However, luckily it doesn't seem to be very effective, given the EU's sinking popularity among its own (unwilling) citizens: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus...

      Oh look. I caught a Russian troll.

  10. Misuse of the word troll by loonycyborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Trolls are by definition people who enjoy causing strife by broaching subjects that cause friction. They're not political propagandists. Trolling isn't a good tool of propaganda because heart of trolling isn't creating falsehood but uncovering unpleasant truth. And such truth seeking does never serve a particular political need. So in my mind calling potential Kremlin propagandists trolls implies that they bring up unpleasant truth. While generally actual propagandists work by highlighting truths that further political goals while downplaying unpleasant truths that doesn't. So basically accusing propagandists in trolling is tantamount to complaining that there's too much truth in propaganda..

    1. Re:Misuse of the word troll by Tranzistors · · Score: 2

      1) Can you propose a better term to describe the “Russian online trolls”? The term must also be correctly recognized by general public.

      2) Since when is trolling “uncovering unpleasant truth”? On the other hand, how else can could describe the goatse guy?

    2. Re:Misuse of the word troll by swb · · Score: 1

      I always thought trolling was just stirring the pot, using inflammatory ideas and language to incite arguments.

      "iPhone users are just egocentric hipsters."

      "Linux users are dorks."

      "FreeBSD is dying."

      "Bernie Sanders is a communist."

      "SystemD is taking over."

    3. Re:Misuse of the word troll by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      I think trolling just means "remotely regulating the blood pressure of as many people as possible".

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
  11. Re: US uses a supercomputer by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Project Bluebird, MKUltra, etc.
    Tuskegee Airmen
    Gulf War Syndrome
    Tracking via Cell Phones
    TSA body scanners
    Secret Courts, laws, watch lists, no fly lists
    Deflected asteroid attack on Buenos Aires
    Roswell
    Kennedy assassination
    AIDS
    Aurora Project
    Bay of Pigs
    Iran Contra
    Robot Al Gore
    Recording all cell phone meta data
    Monitoring all cell phone calls
    Recording every packet crossing over any pipe an American ISP owns
    Distributing crack to blacks
    9/11
    Operation Gunrunner / Fast and Furious
    How there's only ever one person working at the post office
    Watergate
    The DMV
    Steve Irwin Assassination
    Philadelphia Experiment
    Operation Northwood
    Project Grey Box
    Clipper chips / Palladium
    Terminator 3
    Operation Rainfall
    Pan Am 103
    Assassination of Lady Diana
    Fluoride
    Reptilian overlords
    Chem trails
    The red menace / McCarthyism
    Breaking Bad Season 6
    Global warming
    Phantom time
    etc.
    etc.

    Considering how many "crackpot" conspiracy theories turn out to be true, and often far worse than theorized, paranoia should be the default state.

  12. Re: Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand the desire to bash the US that seems so rampant on Slashdot. Equating the US to Russia is quite foolish.

    We have our problems, sure, but they're not really a threat to you. I keep hearing that it would be a big problem if Trump is elected President. That's pretty unlikely, for one. And if he were, Congress would stand in the way of him doing substantial damage. Trump might accidentally succeed in something both Bush and Obama failed at, which is getting Congress to work together.

    Europeans aren't inherently better than the US. You guys have countries seriously considering leaving the EU. You guys have some pretty serious financial issues, far worse than our debt crisis in Puerto Rico. You guys are dealing with the threat of terror and are quickly going down the road toward mass surveillance. The UK is already there and is probably worse than the US. You guys have plenty of racism directed toward refugees; why do you think the word "untermenschen" appears in Slashdot comments with some regularity? It sure isn't a slur that's used in the US.

    Our government pretty clearly isn't paying people to troll the internet. The government doesn't control the US media, not even close. The wealthy and powerful almost completely control our media. It's not a great situation, but it's a far cry from anything going on in Russia.

    With respect to defenses, I don't trust Europe to be more militarily responsible than the US. When you have power, there's a temptation to use it, and often it's not used for good. From time to time, we have to relearn the lessons of war as a new generation begins influencing our decisions, one who hasn't seen what war can do. We fought in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam, but many of us had forgotten how bad war can be. We've relearned that lesson from our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans don't want more wars, because we've learned that lesson once again. These problems are not inherent to Americans; Europeans are not inherently better than Americans.

    We could tell Europe to get lost and return to the Monroe Doctrine of two centuries ago. We're better off not doing that, though.

  13. Re:imperial fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since it's Finland, it could also have been a Scandinavian mile and not English mile, in which case one mile is defined as 10.0km.

  14. Re: Good? by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's not that likely to be elected.

    People said that about George W. Bush.

  15. Re: US uses a supercomputer by UberVegeta · · Score: 4, Funny

    This list reads like a really crap version of "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel.

    --
    I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
  16. Re:Calling Jessika Aro a journalist is a joke. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Found the Russian troll.

    As has been repeatedly stated, but you Russian trolls repeatedly ignore because it exposes your lies, the U.S. does not have an army of paid trolls spewing nonsense on social media like Russia does. We know Russia pays people, its citizens, to put out lies because one woman sued the Russian government over the practice.

    But as always from Russian trolls there will be an excuse or an attempt at deflecting the truth just like when it is pointed out Russia has lost over 2,000 soldiers during its invasion of Ukraine, that Russian soldiers "on vacation" keep getting captured in Ukraine, that Russia funds the terrorists in Eastern Ukraine, that the takeover of Crimea has cost Russia untold amounts of money because supporting a peninsula isn't as easy as Putin said it would be, that Russia has stolen businesses from the people in Crimea and given them over to oligarchs aligned with Putin, that the Tartars of Crimea are forbidden from speaking their own language or having their own schools, that Tartar newspapers have been shut down because they don't post what Putin tells them to do.

    All this, and much, much more, is the truth but Russian trolls always find an excuse to deny the truth. Because that is what they are paid to do.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  17. Re: Good? by andot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably you are russian troll also. Whatever americans have done, it's nothing compared to millions killed, raped, jailed and deported by russians.

  18. Uh huh by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    stirring up trouble with their versions of online flaming, fact-twisting, and overall being a menace to online society.

    Speaking of trolls...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  19. Re:Calling Jessika Aro a journalist is a joke. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1, Troll

    The truth is not nearly as simple as you think it is.
    First of all, Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine. If it actually had, the whole Ukraine would have been occupied long ago - you cannot even imagine how badly Ukrainian army is equipped and how many people there try to dodge the draft nowadays. It is telling that two thirds of Ukrainian soldiers stationed on Crimea have joined the Russian army.

    What Russia does is supporting the separatists in Donbass with hardware and manpower so they can continue keeping Ukraine destabilised, because NATO treaty basically says that countries with ethnic or territorial disputes cannot join until these issues are resolved.

    Second, "stealing" businesses is, in fact, business as usual in Ukraine. Every time a regime change happens there, the oligarchs of the new regime steal from the oligarchs of the old one. That was basically the reason for the latest coup (a.k.a Euromaidan) - Poroshenko has profited quite handsomely from being a president.

    And as for the takeover of Crimea being expensive, well, duh. I've been in Ukraine a few times, it is not far away from being sort of European Zimbabwe. For the last 25 years Ukraine has sold basically everything they have inherited from the USSR and never invested in the country's infrastructure. Hence the expenses.

    And before you call me a Putin troll - I've been on Slashdot even before Putin became a president of Russia. I just have some perspective by the fact of having actually visited Ukraine and by the fact of speaking several Slavic languages - being originally from the other Germany has its bonuses, you know.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  20. Re:imperial fail by njet · · Score: 1

    so many "miles" to choose from. :)

  21. Re: Good? by shilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in what way, exactly, is the US a "massive threat to us (Euro)"?
    Is any European country at risk of invasion by the US, for example? Ask the Baltic countries about the threat of invasion by Russia. That is entirely possible.
    Does the US control strategic gas supplies for heating Europe? Does it use that to exert political leverage in Europe? Again, no, that would be Russia.

    This notion of "a plague on both your houses" is just lazy thinking.

  22. Finland by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    A member of the European Union with an 830-mile-long border with Russia, Finland has stayed outside the United States-led military alliance

    Finland has a long history of "neutrality" and trying to play off both sides of the cold war against each other for their own benefit. It didn't take Russian propaganda to make the Finns pursue such a strategy. It's also hardly news that the Russians have been trying to place propaganda in Western media, that there are actual Russophiles in Europe and European media, or that the typical response of European government and media to speech they don't like is to stomp down on it. So, why is this crap on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Finland by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Good way to drive up site traffic as the paid trolls will come around and post anonymously.

  23. Re:Jessika Aro, drug pusher and a criminal, a trol by shilly · · Score: 1

    1. If you're a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one.
    2. Who gives a flying fuck that "She is known for being convicted for amphetamine-related drug-charges in Finland"? What has that to do with her credibility as a journalist? Did you really read that kind of ad hominem attack and say "well, shit, if she was once convicted of possessing speed, I can't believe her journalism"? As I said, if you really are a Finn, you're a particularly stupid one.
    3. Someone fired a gun next to a phone because they didn't agree with this woman's politics. And you're defending them!

  24. Re: US uses a supercomputer by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

    Let's play Spot the Crazy Person!

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Re:Why don't we talk about the American trolls? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Didn't you read the article? The USA/NATO trolls are "special units" which are set up to protect the West against a "growing threat [to] civil discourse."

    Any foreign or independent opinions which run contrary to the narrative spelled out in Western media propaganda are a "threat"

  27. Re: Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An American here. Also studied American and World History on a college level and as a hobby. I also find Russian history fascinating.

    Russia is very dysfunctional. On a totally different level than the rest of Europe, half of Asia, and the West. It's a miracle they haven't started WWIII yet.

  28. Re: US uses a supercomputer by jimbolauski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I think Trump would make an awful president, I don't think he lacks intelligence. He is able to articulate an opinion that resonates with a significant part of the population and gets them to vote on emotion rather than intellect. Obama did the same with his message of hope, change, and transparency, and voters mindlessly ate it up, he was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize before he was in office and won it without any accomplishments. Emotion can cloud even smart people's judgement. You need a majority of the population to get elected, half the people are dumber then the average person, and the average person is not too bright. To appeal to the dumb masses you need to do it based on emotion as they don't care to hear about some boring plan to fix something, they want to have a tingle run up their leg when their candidate speaks, not fall asleep when their candidate talks about tax reform.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  29. What have the Americans ever done for us? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Euros are not much better informed (am one), and Americans are no better than Russians.

    Communism — first implemented in and spread with support of Russia — has killed 94 million people in the 20th century. What have the Americans ever done to you to even approach — much less equal — that?

    I view both as equal threats to European countries.

    I invite you to compare Western Germany, dominated by Americans, with Eastern Germany... Are you still certain, the threats are equal? Or are you too young to even know, what I'm talking about?

    Stalin is — thanks in part to the propaganda campaign described in TFA — once again a Russia's hero. A "strong leader"... The moment it "rose from its knees" (Russian propaganda's favorite expression), the country went on to attack neighbors. And not just to right wrongs — real or perceived — but to annex territory and expand borders. With overwhelming support from the citizenry — who forgive their own squalor to their rulers in exchange for military victories. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine — all European countries — have already become victims.

    America's last land-acquisition was Hawaii... Are you still sure, the threats are equal?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re: What have the Americans ever done for us? by shilly · · Score: 1

      Thank you for saying this. It's depressing how much people seem to be oblivious too...

    2. Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most of what Europe is seeing is the long term effects of the marshal plan.

      That plan had several interesting long term goals.

      First was to stand Europe back up after WW2. Many people do not quite realize the scope of WW2. This was to give Europeans the ability to rebuild and create more jobs. People with jobs do not want to goto war usually.

      The second was to give Americans a say in what was going on. Up until WW1 the US pretty much stayed out of it. This meant the US got to decide what happened military wise. They did this by making some European countries dependent on US aid and loans. So if a particular country decided to start getting rowdy the funding 'went away'. Many in the US were tired of getting dragged into whatever mess the French, English, Germans, or Spanish had come up with this time.

      The Third was to blunt the expansion of the USSR. The Americans might show up in suits and bully a bit of policy but for the most part let the countries do whatever within the guidelines of peace. This included things like getting rid of guns. The Russians had a much different idea. They show up in tank divisions and execute the leaders in a town including any religious faction leaders. They then put a group of locals who are happy for the change in status quo in charge and back it up with force. Take for example the recent expansion they did. It was pretty much standard USSR expansion 101. Tanks, soldiers under the flag of a 'rebel' group. Then execute anyone who defies them either by 'accident' or overtly.

      The 'hidden' fourth thing was to gut the military of all those countries. The US took care of it. If someone is taking care of it for free you can use that money for other things. It is why the US has one of the largest military budgets in the world. The bases in many countries turned into large sources of taxes and money for the areas where they were built. Many countries say 'get out' then turn around and say 'wait a second we dont want you to go' once they realize what that base meant for the area.

      That was just the European theater. The Pacific theater is similar. Notice the way the US neutered Japan. Japan was as big of a fighting force as German and the Americans.

      Economic prosperity blunts the reasons for war. Harry Truman and George Marshal saw that and put it into effect.

      The Marshal plan is one of the best pieces of legislation and government procedure ever created to promote peace through prosperity.

    3. Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your declaration of "facts" is completely unsubstantiated.

      And yet, you would not refute even one of them...

      Your post in pure garbage [...] your point of view is completely wrong [...] your idiotic view

      You, anti-americans, are so funny... Please, don't hate...

      Calling a piece of land part of the USA is an insignificant designation. At least official annexation is honest and true.

      Honest, huh? Sending special forces into Crimea without insignia was honest, huh? Lying to the world about Georgia's, Moldova's, or Ukraine's "nationalists" planning "massacres" was honest?

      America dominated West Germany and Japan

      America dominated both, because we won the war. USSR dominated its part of the "spoils" on the same justification. I posit, that the countries dominated by Americans did much better — the point, which alone makes America a better, rather than "equal", party in this comparison.

      America's last land acquisition was not Hawaii. It was Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Both remain independent countries with very different laws, customs, and values from America's. America's long-term goal was and remains to prop them up (the way we propped up Germany and Japan), rather than annex or keep in perpetual dependence.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Brainwashed idiots. Aren't they fun.
      Why is it that everyone with this signature: "Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing its organizer" is a completely unreasoning moron?

      There is no USA that stands alone. There is no nationalism in the upper echelons of western society. There is no benefit to that kind of thinking to people who conduct business across national borders, it would only be a hinderance in competition. There is no Europe that stands alone for the same reason. For big events, all is one. Only for small issues of governance is there any difference, and these are insignificant in the context of the events we are discussing here.

      Do you see how this is a much bigger idea than yours and how it encompasses the scope of your entire conversation? You are clearly fixed on your habit of myopic examination of events that are fed to you pre-digested. You think you can defend your stupid view of the world by taking any comer and cherrypicking aspects of their rhetoric to "refute" with your insubstantial statements that jump away from the terms of the present conversation.

      You have no idea how the world works. You are invested in a point of view that does not serve you.
      You probably have a decent job and all you need taken care of and this is all the reason you need to adopt dogma and destroy your own mind out of the cowardly fear that it would be taken against you by the enemies of the entity that provides for you.
      Wake up

    5. Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Brainwashed idiots [...] unreasoning moron

      Fuck you, asshole. That's the kind of "debating" you get for your name-calling.

      Next time — behave...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      you lose. "I DECLARE NAME-CALLING, THIS EXEMPTS ME FROM JUSTIFY MY POINT OF VIEW EVEN TO MYSELF"
      brainlessness

      There is no USA that stands alone. There is no nationalism in the upper echelons of western society. There is no benefit to that kind of thinking to people who conduct business across national borders, it would only be a hinderance in competition. There is no Europe that stands alone for the same reason. For big events, all is one. Only for small issues of governance is there any difference, and these are insignificant in the context of the events we are discussing here.

      Do you see how this is a much bigger idea than yours and how it encompasses the scope of your entire conversation? You are clearly fixed on your habit of myopic examination of events that are fed to you pre-digested. You think you can defend your stupid view of the world by taking any comer and cherrypicking aspects of their rhetoric to "refute" with your insubstantial statements that jump away from the terms of the present conversation.

      You have no idea how the world works. You are invested in a point of view that does not serve you.
      You probably have a decent job and all you need taken care of and this is all the reason you need to adopt dogma and destroy your own mind out of the cowardly fear that it would be taken against you by the enemies of the entity that provides for you.
      Wake up

    7. Re:What have the Americans ever done for us? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      You had no arguments. You just referenced some sources and took credit for something like "reading between the lines" for simply paraphrasing their content with absolutely no sign of critical thought.

      You are a myopic little gremlin. You cannot be considered truly human, unless a parrot could also be considered so.

  30. Re: Good? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    People say a lot of things. Some of which turn out to be true.

    Looking at those correlations is not going to get you anywhere close to a correct prediction.

    I personally believe that what we are seeing now is the motivated core party members voting. I believe that in a general election Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  31. Re: Good? by hesiod · · Score: 2

    Polls mean pretty much nothing until a month or so before the actual election. They rarely reflect reality and often show contradictory results.

  32. Re: Good? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    People said that about George W. Bush.

    Nobody said that about GWB. He was ahead in the polls from the start, had a solid record as governor of Texas, and he ran as a center-right "compassionate conservative" moderate. For the first year, he also governed as a center-right moderate. It wasn't until his 2002 "axis-of-evil" speech that his presidency went off the rails.

  33. Re: US uses a supercomputer by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Considering how many "crackpot" conspiracy theories turn out to be true

    The MK-Ultra one always gets me. I was sure it was all just a made-up kookie conspiracy theory and when it turned out to be true I had to really adjust my thinking.

    Also, Ronald Reagan flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. As much as I hated Reagan, I figured that had to be a crazy fever dream. But no...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  34. Re: Good? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the desire to bash the US that seems so rampant on Slashdot.

    Don't take it personally. America is on top, and people have a natural inclination to complain about the top dog. But they don't really mean it. Very few people in Europe would prefer a Russian or Chinese world order over what they have now.

  35. Re: Good? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Is any European country at risk of invasion by the US, for example?

    Militarily, no. Culturally, yes. There are a dozen McDonalds within walking distance of the Louvre. Europeans search with Google, and socialize with Facebook. American culture, mostly from American corporations, is pervasive in Europe, and many of them don't like it.

  36. Re: Good? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Even a month before the election they don't mean much. We had a couple of Provincial races here in Canada where the polls were totally wrong and the last Federal election was interesting as for the first time ever, it was a 3 way race out of the gate and all 3 parties took turns leading the polls, there ended up being a record amount of strategic voting giving the winner a bigger win then predicted.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  37. Re: US uses a supercomputer by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    This list reads like a really crap version of "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel.

    You win the internet today.

  38. Re:i dont know you but by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    I nominate rick zeman as faggot shill of the year

    Spasibo. An insult from a troll is a compliment indeed!

  39. The Wikipedia Admin Theater of War by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Sovereign trolls in online comments are wasting their resources. The high stakes strategic target for sovereign trolls is Wikipedia's administrative structure.

  40. Re: US uses a supercomputer by ultranova · · Score: 1

    Obama did the same with his message of hope, change, and transparency, and voters mindlessly ate it up, he was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize before he was in office and won it without any accomplishments.

    Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for getting Republicans out of power. Isn't that kinda obvious?

    --

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

  41. Re: Good? by INT_QRK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last I lived in Europe, I must have missed all the armed squads of Americans forcing poor Europeans into McDonalds, making the locals use Google, and enforcing Facebook edicts. Yep, ordinary Americans living in central Texas really give a rodent's rectum where Europeans eat, browse and share stupid photos.

  42. Re:It's not only Russia by clodney · · Score: 1

    Anyone who seriously entertains the notion that the US/UK or for that matter any country hosting governments interested in information control is not employing paid trolls, shills, misinfo and disinfo agents in an attempt to control the narrative and beliefs of their populace (or at least muddy the waters beyond comprehension) is to this writer's mind either lost in cognitive dissonance, or worse, willfully ignorant.

    I have no doubt that at least the US does this to some extent, but I doubt that it exists on a level equal to the Russian trolls, or we would be hearing more about it. Unless you believe in some vast shadowy conspiracy that has a stranglehold over all media and prevents news of this from coming to light, in which case you should really just go out and get more tinfoil.

    One reason that I think it is unlikely that the US employs a huge number of people for this is just the question of getting people qualified in a language other than English. To have even a few hundred Russian speaking pro english trolls who are orchestrated and controlled by the government would be a significant recruiting effort, particularly if they need to keep their work secret.

  43. Re: US uses a supercomputer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A request for clarification - are these a list of conspiracy theories on the internet, a list of conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true, a list of conspiracy theories proven to be false? Seriously, what the fuck is this supposed to be?

    Can you provide some specifics here, because your message is unclear (not that I'm surprised by that):
    The Tuskegee Airmen? What, the segregated US Army Air Corp fighter squadron? Or were you thinking of the untreated Syphilis experiment?
    How there's only ever one person working at the post office ? What, do they use mirrors, because when I go there, I usually see several different individuals behind the counter.
    Aurora Project ? You mean the B2 Bomber?
    The DMV ? What about it? That it's a large agency that's not optimized? Like Comcast's customer support is better
    Chem trails condensation of the products of combustion? Or is it the generally poor science education in the US?
    Terminator 3 Not the best of movies, but you want to list it with MK Ultra? please specify?
    Global warming For or against?

  44. Re: Good? by Jack_of_Shadow · · Score: 2

    I wish I could vote you up! I work in Europe a lot, and frankly, Europeans seem to like Kentucky Fried Chicken a hell of a lot more than I do! If you don't want it there, then stop using it, and it will go out of business in your country...

    --
    My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
  45. Re: Good? by shilly · · Score: 5, Informative

    If we're going back in history as far as WWII, then we're going back as far as Stalin. I doubt all the deaths attributable to all US presidents since WWII add up to the numbers slaughtered by Stalin. The insistence on seeing the US as dramatically more evil than every other state is patently absurd.

  46. Re: The EU doesn't even deny doing its own trollin by shilly · · Score: 1

    Nigel? On Slashdot? In the words of INXS, "Two worlds colliding..."

  47. Re: Good? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The longer it takes, the less time Clinton will have to hold her new, post pivot, centrist position.

    I'm comfortable with the gridlock that would come from any conceivable outcome of this election. Even if Clinton wins _and_ takes the Senate, she wouldn't hold it more than two years.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  48. Re: Good? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    They should talk to the Thai and Vietnamese, see how they handled the arrogant foreigners.

    If the French really wanted to kill McDonald's they should learn to cook a good hamburger. It's hard to make a burger as bad as McDonald's. I'm sure the French can do it (actually both, 'bad as' and 'good'), they invented 'French Fries' after all.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  49. Re: Nothing compared to western propaganda by shilly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's a good, not malicious, reason why people on Slashdot are anti-Russia and anti-China. Russia is run by a kleptocrat thug who poisons dissidents on the streets of London (round the corner from my frigging office, so I remain quite indignant). China is run by an autocrat who is tightening power and clamping down on all dissent. Both states routinely forbid the mass of their citizenry from doing things that those of us in the West take for granted. The restrictions on freedom of speech, of belief, of religious practice, of sexual identity and behaviour, etc, are orders of magnitude greater than anything we in the West have to contemplate. There is no Great Firewall of the US. The one in China is all too real. This stuff matters, and ought not to be downplayed.

  50. Re: Good? by shilly · · Score: 1

    They make a better burger. And they make steak hache, which is glorious.

  51. WOW - We are in a minute from full Cold War! by Ektanoor · · Score: 1

    Just you people tell me when we start injecting cyanide behind grandpa's ears and eating babies at breakfast! ...

  52. Re: US uses a supercomputer by axewolf · · Score: 1

    Let's play Spot the Person with a Raging Inferiority Complex!

  53. Re:The EU doesn't even deny doing its own trolling by Whibla · · Score: 2

    I'm a citizen of a country that made the tragic mistake to be part of the EU, hopefully not forever, and I see the EU itself as a threat to the sovereignty of my own homeland.

    I'm going to guess you're British, I know I am. English before that, though I now reside in Wales. I have also resided elsewhere(s) around to world, at various times in my life. Any (international) agreement we enter into is, in a sense, a reaction to a 'threat' to our sovereignty. Once you accept that there are other individuals / tribes / nations / associations of nations you can enter into a conversation with them. There's nothing wrong with you or me as an individual being a part of any of those units on the 'scale of nations' as you seem to perceive it. [Of course I might be wrong about your slant, I'm just deducing from what (I think) you intimated in your post. ...

    ... "the EU" does not comply with these basic requirements, and it is composed by 29 nations that used to be at war with one another for more than 2K years. So please, don't spread the illusion of a non-existing "EU nationalism", recent elections and the skyrocketing results of anti-EU parties prove it is just bullshit.

    The EU is not a nation, it's an association of nations, which could take a number of 'political' forms, certainly its 3 parlimentary structures are a little confusing at first glance. The question is whether we are better off not being an active internal particpant (and donor / recipient) of this association, at all, or better off being an active part of it now, and, now having the power (however little that may be, merely by virtue of being a member) to change the organisation, asking can we change it, and can we change it for the better of all within it?

    I had been teetering on the fence for some while, sometimes leaning one way, other-times swaying the other or back again.

    Now I'm 'certain. It is almost certainly better (for me, for you, for everyone else within the union, and potentially for everyone outside it too) to be (remain) in!*

    *IMO, YMMV...

  54. Re: Good? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    There is some debate about where french fries were invented.

    Pizza has been reinvented twice. And swiss cheese is American. It was just named swiss cheese because it bears a similarity to some actually swiss cheese.

  55. Re: Good? by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

    Polls are pretty good indicators... until the fraud kicks in.

  56. Re: Good? by samwichse · · Score: 1

    Funny: There was a Kentucky Fried Chicken right next to my work. It just went out of business because 2 years ago, a pair of Greek guys opened a nice little chargrilled chicken place across the road.

    Nobody went to KFC anymore.

  57. Re: US uses a supercomputer by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Amazing that Breaking Bad Season 6 didn't make your list...what about it?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  58. Re: Good? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    He's not that likely to be elected.

    People said that about George W. Bush.

    Twice.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial