Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Spend Nearly $500K To 'Combat Online Trolling' (freebeacon.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the flamebait dept.

mi writes: Washington Free Beacon reports: "The National Science Foundation is spending roughly half a million dollars to combat 'online trolling.' A joint project by Northwestern and Northeastern universities is examining how to create 'trolling-free environments' on the internet. The researchers define online trolls as those who try to influence public opinion by boosting 'misleading' and 'inauthentic comments.'" Just how can the "misleading" and "inauthentic" speech be eliminated by the government without violating the First Amendment? "Today almost every browser click that users make is collected by numerous trackers associated with a variety of online services (e.g., advertising networks, online social networks, e-commerce platforms)," a grant for the project states. "Users have often expressed concern about the lack of privacy and control over their personal data. Nonetheless, despite a substantial effort to expose and control this prevalent behavior, the reality is that users keep accepting updated online privacy policies, which in turn grant the gathering of more personal data. This project explores re-using this extensive tracking infrastructure for the benefits of both the users themselves and web services, with a goal of preventing online trolling (scenarios in which various groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, by leaving biased, false, misleading, and inauthentic comments, and then artificially amplifying their ratings). The project aims to show how the tracking infrastructure can be re-used as a user 'fingerprint,' allowing a lightweight and privacy-preserving form of identification for third-party web sites." The lead researchers on the project, Aleksander Kuzmanovic from Northwestern University, and Alan Mislove from Northeastern University, said: "Public opinion is of paramount importance in any society. It is thus not a surprise that many governments, political parties, and various other groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, a practice commonly referred to as trolling." They say their work could help combat "troll armies" used by Russia and China.

93 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. WTF by geek · · Score: 2

    Title says 500 million. Summary says half a million. Does not compute

    1. Re:WTF by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The obvious error in the title is an example of on-line trolling (subcategory: nerd-bait).

      The NSF will be here shortly to shut down the offending website. So long, everyone!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:WTF by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually taking into account the subject matter "public OPINION", in this case the National Science Foundation are categorically trolling. Opinion is not facts and should never be associated with facts, opinions are modified by opinions and all opinions have exactly equal weight, practically nothing. Now if they want to pursue truth, then they have to do that in a court of law, the place with facts are presented and challenged, where opinions have their proper weight ie not much at all.

      Of course what this really stinks to high heaven of, is, they want to create forums where only the approved opinions pretending to be facts ie propaganda have weight and all other opinions are deleted, yet somehow retain those people whose opinions have been deleted and force them to read the propaganda (reality is censor people and they leave the forum and go to other forums where they do censor based upon their approved propaganda).

      So want a government controlled forum, don't fuck around morons, create one controlled by the US congress, require full accurate details to register and allow anonymous user names (secretly tied to real names) because some people can be idiots, violent idiots (think of the consequences of vote history of individuals being made publicly accessible) and when you censor or kick people off be prepared to defend that in a court of law. As for the rest of the internet, yeah good luck trying to herd cats, censor them and they majority will go to other forums and your censored forums dies as they should (think of social networks like say Myspace censored to favour advertisers in much the same manner as main stream media is censored to favour advertisers, where is Myspace now).

      Want to do, do it but don't expect people to go there, idiots. Don't like people's negative opinions, don't do things to piss them off and then lie about it or illegally try to keep it secret (using government funds to keep secret governments actions that would have an impact upon the vote, that is against electoral laws and a core requirement for democracy, citizens must have all the truth about the government to decide whether or not to replace them and it is a criminal act to deny them that).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:WTF by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Yep. Any attempt to curb trolling would be tantamout to mandating that one only speaks the truth, and you can't do that.

      Authoritarian regimes have been known to do a pretty decent (if shockingly brutal, bloody, & heartless at times) job of it (*their* version of it) given sufficient jackboots, strong domestic data/communications gathering/analysis, and a nearly disarmed (of any sort of effective combat-useful weapons, at least), disheartened, economically stressed, and divided population.....

      "Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!"

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re: WTF by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You have read too much bad fiction. In reality armed people usually helped authoritarian governments because former soldiers and gun nuts are usually just fine with authoritarian governments, provided it is their kind of authoritarian.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re: WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      More whether the public cares. 500k wasted or 500m, does anyone still give a shit?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, trolling can take the form of an attempt to prevent free speech. If people go and dox someone, try to get his employer involved with a "look what he said, do you really want someone like that working for you?", try to harass and threaten them just because they voiced their opinion, that does actually endanger free speech.

      Now, the argument may be that it's not the government doing it but some private citizen or an organization, but that doesn't make it better. Actually, it makes it worse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: WTF by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Actually, trolling can take the form of an attempt to prevent free speech. If people go and dox someone ...

      If you want to prevent doxing, then ban threatening and stalking. But there is no reason to censor speech just because it may lead to something the government doesn't like.

      First they came for the trolls, and I am speaking out because I am a troll ...

    8. Re: WTF by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      You have read too much bad fiction. In reality armed people usually helped authoritarian governments because former soldiers and gun nuts are usually just fine with authoritarian governments, provided it is their kind of authoritarian.

      I find it telling that out of all the things I listed which are pretty much equal in terms of building-blocks towards fomenting and enabling the rise of authoritarianism in a relatively free & open society, firearms are what you chose to focus on.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re: WTF by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      500k for a gov't agency is an agency that isn't even trying I mean come on 500k is only enough to run the keurig in the break room for a year.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    10. Re: WTF by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Oh the scary spectre of doxing. Such nonsense! Public info is public info is public info. If it's such a problem then we simply need better anonymity tools or yo stop being scared of our own shadows let alone the things we may say online.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    11. Re: WTF by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      What did it tell you? That they didn't disagree with the rest of it?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    12. Re: WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Good luck trying to sue someone in Generistan for stalking and threatening.

      The sensible thing here is to force webpages to avoid being accomplices. Anything else won't work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re: WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The things you say can well have severe negative impact for you. Let's say you're working for a certain large corporation, not because you're so fond of it but simply because it's the only relevant employer in your area. Without protection from being outed, you could never say anything said corporation does not agree with, because you'd easily lose your job for speaking your mind.

      The problem about the first amendment is that it limits governments', not your employers', ability to fuck with you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The researchers define online trolls as those who try to influence public opinion by boosting 'misleading' and 'inauthentic comments.'

    Where I'm from, they're called politicians.

    1. Re:What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the US it's called the mainstream media.

    2. Re:What's good for the goose... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Where I'm from, they're called politicians.

      Yeah, this is pretty insightful. From the summary:

      with a goal of preventing online trolling (scenarios in which various groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, by leaving biased, false, misleading, and inauthentic comments, and then artificially amplifying their ratings)

      I'd say if you remove "on the internet" from this definition, it's pretty much a description of a lot of actions by modern political parties.

      Political parties are not generally interested in being "fair and balanced" -- they cite only the ideas supporting their point of view. They have no interest in lauding alternative political views. That's pretty much the definition of ideological "bias." And it's very common for political parties to focus on facts and information that will make their argument appear stronger, while leaving out inconvenient facts and information that could undermine their argument. In the world of "accuracy" and "truth," that practice can vary from "misleading" to telling an outright "lie of omission." (And that doesn't even count the times politicians deliberately lie outright with misrepresentations so egregious that no rational person could say their perspective is a fair representation of facts -- if this weren't the case, we wouldn't have a multitude of "fact-checking" organizations that rate political statements on their trustworthiness.)

      And that leaves "inauthentic." Do we really need to give examples of that for politicians, who routinely get caught in situations like visiting a fast food restaurant to "be among the people" and trying to order something ridiculously fancy or not on the menu? Or going to a grocery store but not having a clue about the prices of everyday items or the kind of stuff "normal people" buy? We have even had things like a Rhodes scholar adopting an Arkansas hick "bubba" personality and rhetoric at times to seem more "likeable." Or Bush Jr.'s similar antics.

      As for "artificially amplifying their ratings," just listen to the rhetoric at any rally. You'd think everyone on the planet was standing up and cheering for them from the way they talk about their campaign.

      I'm NOT saying political parties are exactly the same as "trolls" -- internet trolls often push these elements to greater extremes (well, maybe not more so than our current Republican candidate). But there's something fundamentally similar about the misleading rhetoric of politics and that of trolls. The main difference seems to be that a lot of internet trolls just do it for the kicks, whereas political parties do it for money and power.

  3. Re:Trool? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sometimes sharing valuable information can be trolling. But either way, on the internet, there are no such thing as safe spaces that trolls like myself cannot penetrate.

  4. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yet you're still here

  5. That... That's not trolling at all. by Pluvius · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is thus not a surprise that many governments, political parties, and various other groups deploy tactics to influence public opinion on the internet, a practice commonly referred to as trolling.

    No, that's commonly referred to as "astroturfing." Trolling is something totally different, and not something that state actors generally get involved in.

    Rob

    1. Re:That... That's not trolling at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not like the word means a fucking thing anymore. If someone says something you don't like on the Internet, you can safely call it "trolling".

  6. Re:Trool? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Oh, and I forgot to add: Trolling on the internet can and does spill out IRL, and no amount of government money can stop it. Case in point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  7. Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    500k is an absurd amount of money to do what basically amounts to "reversing fundamental human nature".

    I could spend $50 and spend the day examining how various popular online forums worked, and probably gain a lot more insight than they ever will...

    Probably most of the $500k is going to Hillary election funds through various shell companies.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by quantaman · · Score: 1

      500k is an absurd amount of money to do what basically amounts to "reversing fundamental human nature".

      I could spend $50 and spend the day examining how various popular online forums worked, and probably gain a lot more insight than they ever will...

      They're probably just throwing a small team of researchers onto examining the issue, to see if there is a project worth spending real money on. I'm sure the NSF does small projects like this all the time, this one just happened to get a story about it.

      Probably most of the $500k is going to Hillary election funds through various shell companies.

      A completely out of context shot at a politician?

      The thought is appreciated but I don't think they're looking for sample data yet.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      It's not out of context at all, because a TON of money is funneled from small projects like this to political donors all the time. A nonsensical project like this that consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars for what will be in the end a very small study is the perfect vehicle for graft.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by quantaman · · Score: 1

      It's not out of context at all, because a TON of money is funneled from small projects like this to political donors all the time. A nonsensical project like this that consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars for what will be in the end a very small study is the perfect vehicle for graft.

      The $500k is going to two different universities in the form of grants. And if you're looking to cover part of the professor's salaries, grad students salaries, some equipment, it's a reasonable amount to take a serious look at the project.

      You actually think those professors will somehow misappropriate those grants to either donate to a Clinton campaign fund or give the money to "shell companies" who will then donate it? That's ridiculous.

      Now here's the interesting questions as I see them:

      1) Assuming you were sincere in the belief that this project was intended as a graft scheme are you still trolling?

      2) You got modded to +5 since /. has become overrun by the anti-Hillary crowd. So if the community has come to accept your outrageous premise is it still a troll?

      3) I'm clearly not buying the "Hillary is evil and people should take every opportunity to mention that" narrative. I think my post and the analysis are pretty accurate, though I'm also a bit aggressive and admittedly condescending. But does the fact I'm out of step with this consensus make me a troll?

      It's a tricky issue, I can see why they need $500k just to start poking at it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The $500k is going to two different universities in the form of grants.

      And the universities then spend $100-$200k a pop on speaking fees for politicians, because they don't have to spend that money the grants are covering....

      Stop being so naive.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by newslash.formatblows · · Score: 1

      I find it to be equivalent to trolling whenever someone (usually a red-state politician) totally mischaracterizes someone's funded research grant as "$x hundred thousand to study toad eyeballs" as they try to sum up 15-30 pages of scientific text into three or four words that are as dismissive of science as possible. Contrary to the Fox News narrative, it's generally pretty hard to get an NSF grant, and they don't typically hand them out for ideas that should have gone to the shredder. Also, at my small-potato U, that overhead that the U charges does *not* all go to a slush fund. It is split between the PI (obviously not for his/her personal enrichment, but to be spent on things that would ordinarily be legit for the school to buy him/her), the PI's dept, the PI's college, and the Provost's office. And of course, anything left gets converted into grubby $5 bills and smuggled to Bill & Hillary in brown paper bags.

    6. Re:Even with magnitude corrected, way too much by newslash.formatblows · · Score: 1

      Is it just possible that you're not really an expert in whatever field (or sub-field) this was? And that your opinion of it based on a headline may be inferior to the review panel's evaluation of the full proposal? I certainly never claimed "unshakable belief in the government doing no wrong", but I'm also not enough of a tin-foil consumer to be convinced that any research that doesn't lead immediately to higher profits this quarter is either pie in the sky or out-and-out graft.

  8. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Nice troll

  9. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    You got proof that is happening? Please elaborate... We should know if it really is.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Happily my custom HOSTS file already blocks out all online trolling for me. Why is this board so empty, though? Not a single comment in 30 mins?

  11. Orwellian future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Watch as 'trolling' becomes 'opinions I don't agree with'.
    This is how 1984 becomes a reality.

    P.S. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.

    1. Re:Orwellian future. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Watch as 'trolling' becomes 'opinions I don't agree with'.
      This is how 1984 becomes a reality.

      P.S. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.

      For some people that has always been the case.

  12. First Amendment in the way? by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just how can the "misleading" and "inauthentic" speech be eliminated by the government without violating the First Amendment?

    Easy! Just call a constitutional convention and eliminate the First Amendment. Since it's growing more unpopular every day, it shouldn't be a difficult task. In fact we can put the entire Bill of Rights on the block. Anybody got a problem with that? After all, there is a war on... and all this freedom stuff is only making total victory more elusive.

    As a side note, watch for possible shadow banning, and please inform us if you see any evidence of it happening

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:First Amendment in the way? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Delisting or deep listing from search sites seems the new tool for govs and their NGO political activists.
      The use of gov mil assets directly seems to be a new idea too.
      The removal of US gov limits on spreading domestic propaganda [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith–Mundt_Act]
      Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media (18 March 2011)
      https://www.theguardian.com/te...
      ""online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world."
      and the new ""Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act" with a "Center for Information Analysis and Response" (March 17, 2016)
      "award grants and contracts to non-government and civil society organisations, research centers, private sector companies, media organisations and other experts outside the U.S. government that have experience in identifying and analysing disinformation methods used by foreign governments."
      http://www.voanews.com/a/us-se...
      So expect two areas of new US and UK funding, one to flood the net with fake good news and another to ensure all the comments left are just as happy and supportive of US/UK big gov/mil/bureaucracies.
      British army creates team of Facebook warriors (Saturday 31 January 2015)
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:First Amendment in the way? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, they are threatened by the voters who think we have "too much" freedom. They are the authoritarians I have in mind. How do we protect ourselves from them should they become a majority?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:First Amendment in the way? by AaronW · · Score: 2

      The same could be said of Trump who promises to sue the media for negative stories about him. There can be a fine line with hate speech, just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten to harm someone. Hate speech has consequences. Joining a hate group (or any group that advocates violence) is a good way to get on the police or FBI's radar, for example.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    4. Re:First Amendment in the way? by mi · · Score: 1

      The same could be said of Trump who promises to sue the media for negative stories about him

      No, it can not be. Trump is not (yet) a government official, so his efforts to fight other people's speech are not against the First Amendment.

      There can be a fine line with hate speech [...] a good way to get on the police or FBI's radar

      Thank you for providing this good example of an authoritarian calling for and implicitly approving of police persecuting other people's speech. Like I said, the real danger is from the supposed "Liberals" like yourself.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:First Amendment in the way? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Trump is not (yet) a government official, so his efforts to fight other people's speech are not against the First Amendment.

      But, he is using government officials (the judges) in his fight. So yes, his efforts are in violation the First Amendment.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:First Amendment in the way? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump is enabled by the government though, via a dodgy legal system that allows someone rich to bankrupt people they don't like even if they don't win, and where expensive lawyers often do win because they are better resourced.

      Rich people should not be able to use their wealth to silence others via a branch of the government.

      --
      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:First Amendment in the way? by mi · · Score: 1

      Trump is enabled by the government though

      We all are. This is not about Trump. Anybody — poor, well off, and super rich alike — can and do sue for defamation. These are all civil suits and have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your misconception is common — fustakrakich above has posted the same stupidity, for example — but a misconception it is:

      This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel. A television station similarly can be sued if it broadcasts a story that unlawfully invades a person’s privacy.

      allows someone rich to bankrupt people they don't like

      The assholes and bitches seeking to ban "hate speech" would not merely bankrupt people they don't like — they'd put them in prison by making such expressions a felony. And the assholes and bitches would not spend their own money on it either — crimes are prosecuted by the government.

      even if they don't win

      I keep saying, we ought to have the losers of lawsuits being automatically ordered to compensate the winners legal expenses...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:First Amendment in the way? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to sue for libel, I'm saying that a legal system where the mere threat of suing is chilling due to the high cost of litigation, and where the person with the most money usually wins is bad for everyone.

      At least try to understand the argument you are rebutting before going full brexit on us.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:First Amendment in the way? by mi · · Score: 1

      And I am saying, you argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment issues involved in government trying to limit some speech as "hateful" or otherwise incorrect. And, of course, Trump is completely off-topic too.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:First Amendment in the way? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wasn't arguing that. I'm well aware of the limitations of the 1st Amendment. I was merely stating that the government is not blameless or uninvolved.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by HBI · · Score: 1

    Tempests in teapots. I'm sure people online like to think collective opinion matters here, but it doesn't, really.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Arab Spring ring a bell ?

    2. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by HBI · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that online activity had anything to do with that?

      It's a convenient belief structure, but the issues that caused the uprisings were going to come to fruition even if Vint Cerf had concluded that packet based communication had no future.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Seems there's quite a few repressive regimes that want internet off switches and are looking to control the content of their nets.

      Just off the top of my head, Saudi Arabia and China both take it very seriously.

    4. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by HBI · · Score: 2

      They do, but the Soviets used to register and control typewriters. And for all the samizdat activity in the old S.U., what ultimately undid them were blue jeans. Or more precisely, lack of consumer goods. So you can be way too paranoid, y'know?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    5. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your point, but let me ask, how do you know free flow of information and the ability to organize wouldn't have done them in ?

      They actually had a much better consumer economy for awhile under Lenin's "New Economic Program"

    6. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And for all the samizdat activity in the old S.U., what ultimately undid them were blue jeans. Or more precisely, lack of consumer goods.

      No, not really. Soviet Union didn't fall to a popular uprising, after all. What did it in was the inability to change, grow and adapt caused by a system hell-bent on maintaining the status quo at all costs. Censorship was a means to enforce that by essentially lobotomizing the public and thus wasting their creative potential, but the same can be achieved in other ways - for example by blaming all problems on suitable scapegoats like immigrants rather than the system's own failures, thus preventing them from being corrected.

      --

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

    7. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by HBI · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union ultimately fell to a popular uprising, inasmuch as the hardliners lost their nerve during the 1991 coup. Were you around for this, with Yeltsin on top of a tank? Maybe not...here's a BBC link. This was all like it was yesterday to me, but it is 25 years ago now. Enough time for someone to grow up to adulthood without knowing about it.

      As for what happened before, Gorbachev's 'glasnost' and 'perestroika' policies were essentially driven by a reformist Communist agenda. He believed that by changing the way the state ran, the economic system could be preserved. He was wrong. The hardliners in the 1991 coup wanted to restore the full Soviet package of repression and isolation, but realized they lacked sufficient support to make it happen.

      After the coup, the constituent states of the Soviet Union all opted out by the end of 1991, and it passed into history. Anyway, I don't see how you don't call this a popular uprising. Gorby was trying to avoid a civil war by reforming, but in the end the people basically kicked him out of his job and went their own way.

      The Chinese were a lot smarter about this - junk the socialist economic system and keep the authoritarianism. It's a lot more functional, though they're running into a brick wall now with that.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    8. Re:Someone spends way too much time on Twitter by HBI · · Score: 1

      I suppose I can't assure that the counterfactual wouldn't have been true. But I have my doubts. The Soviets were really good about maintaining internal control and I don't think information dissemination would have done all that much. The Voice of America was pounding them with broadcasts for 40+ years with little effect.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  14. Re:State trolling by Pluvius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Again, that's not trolling, regardless of what some people are calling them. That's astroturfing for the Russian government and Putin, and against the US, Ukraine, and Alexei Navalny. Trolling is when you say controversial, annoying, and/or inflammatory shit just to get a response from people. That's not the aim of this astroturfing, which is just a relatively new way of disseminating the same old FUDdy propaganda that governments have been producing since the invention of writing.

    Rob

  15. Re:State trolling by mi · · Score: 1

    Trolling is when you say controversial, annoying, and/or inflammatory shit just to get a response from people.

    I, actually, agree with you on the original meaning of "trolling". And yet, TFA talks about that "other" trolling and this subthread of ours is purely "semantics" now.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  16. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Informative

    Much as you say, but I note that HRC has invested heavily in something called correct the record.

    Looking at their about page, we find this helpful description:

    Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.

    The news article (first link, above) has some interesting sections, such as:

    Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.

    Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.

    Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.

    “This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”

    Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.

    “While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.

    Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.

    I suppose it's OK, because HRC only wants to "break down barriers and bring America together", because of course the ends justify any means. Right?

    I wonder if any of these commisars^w um... partisans^w um... truth seekers have come to Slashdot?

    (Also relevant This XKCD comic.)

  17. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Please provide a URL of a "banned" comment. You will need to save a copy of the comment locally to keep a record.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  18. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    You're doing a fine job, whipslash. You've got my vote and if you ever fix the goddamn subscribe button, I'll gladly donate to Slashdot again.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    What's essentially happening is that the folks who would normally get the MD5'd IP address warning for making too many downmodded comments a day are now getting shadowbanned...the end result of which is that if a comment deemed to be a "troll" is posted by the banned IP address, it will show up as if it had normally been posted. However, subsequent visits to the site from the same browser (or even refreshing the page) and the comment will be missing.

    Have you tried reporting this to the Slashdot Ombudsman? You can reach him at the Slashdot Support 800- number, I believe it's option #4 on the menu. Be polite, be ready to present evidence, and I'm sure they'll give you a fair hearing.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  20. Re:State trolling by Pluvius · · Score: 1

    It's not just semantics--there's a big difference between the government funding methods to discourage people from saying things that are surely just "inauthentic comments" meant to provoke a reaction, which is what "creating trolling-free environments" suggests (and is even how it is read in the quote in the /. summary), and the government funding methods to combat Russian disinfo sockpuppet factories, which is what is actually happening. Ironically, the researchers themselves could be argued to be trolling people with the word choice, though I don't think that's deliberate.

    Rob

  21. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    :-) I find your response, 'intriguing', and somewhat amusing. Since I saved it here, I'll let you know if becomes shadow banned in the future.

    The comment you save will contain the URL. If you reload that URL from the internet, and it doesn't show up than you have your evidence. You do know how to use Ctrl-S, right?

    If you don't want to save the page, just copy the URL from the address bar. You do know how to use Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V, right? If not, you can right click and left click 'copy' from the menu that pops up, then paste it into your favorite text editing program.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. Re: If there's one thing I've learned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually one of the things that is happening a lot is that people are impersonating a revolting, disgusting parody of the opposing party they disagree with, and crapflooding comment areas. Example: in a pro-Trump discussion forum- people come in and make racist or homophobic comments that are actually just trolls. Or trolls come into an environmental forum and act all monkeywrenchlike, advocating destructive acts.

    It's popular now to try to make the people you oppose seem unhinged by impersonating an unhinged commenter in their gathering places.

  23. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Thanks- and nice signature

  24. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Its not true. All you have to do is browse at -1 on almost any story and it's painfully clear its not true. Trolls will be trolls though.

  25. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Honestly, Hillary has been the subject of attacks against her character since before we had Obama as a President. In fact, that's how we got Obama as a President, as back then "America isn't ready for a woman President" (and yet after Hillary was out of the race, it was time to bolster failing ratings by offering up Sarah Palin!).

    If nobody wants to charge her, it's because there isn't a charge. Any District Attorney would charge her if there was the basis of even half-a-case because it would be enough news coverage to be famous for years, if not decades. Certain FOX news anchors leveraged their "worked for he DA-ness" and became mini-celebrities. That they can't find a DA that would do it means only one thing, the DA would be disbarred for trying someone without evidence.

    You can make a career out of being a poorly performing DA (withholding evidence, making false statements, disregard for due process, playing fast an loose with ethics, and prosecutorial misconduct) with good looks and a big mouth (Nancy Grace), but you can't make a career out of being a disbarred lawyer.

  26. Wrong by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Opinions do not all have the same weight, you are using poor reasoning skills. "The World is Round" is an opinion, and a very good one. The world is Flat is another opinion, but that opinion is bad. See how that works? There is almost nothing that is a pure true or pure false opinion, yet there are surely "good" and "bad" ones.

    That people can make poor opinions is a different question. I don't care that your poor opinion is made public, it gave me a chance to make a correction for all to see.

    I really didn't pay much attention to the remainder of your post. First impressions and all that.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  27. Is this a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up, link is the Snowden leak on Jtrig, the UK's astroturf, fake victim, false rape claim group, used to discredit targets with smears. (e.g. Assange et al).

    But regardless, GP claim is false "Astroturfing" and "Trolling" are one and the same, FREE SPEECH. Trolling is speech which in the opinion OF THE READER is something they view as a troll, but in others opinion it might be a legitimate reply. FBI has ZERO business interfering in free speech.

    Look, let me give you a concrete example:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6KQATOxxH4

    This is Evalions "How to spot a feminist", it's usually the subject of endless take down requests, its a harsh critic of feminism, which lets twats get it suppressed as hate speech or similar random claims. However it is just someone expressing a view. The troll aspect is a function of the Material+Viewer. If a viewer gets a comment taken down because they don't like it, they are the bad in that situation.

  28. Re:Moderator should be put out to pasture by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    To wedge them between the Uranium rods should they get too hot, it just might avoid another Chernobyl.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Re: They already invested in Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why isn't the source code for Slashdot open source again? That would settle this once and for all. It used to be open, and it makes sense for a site that posts a lot about open source. Hosting it on SourceForge would be a good gesture to start restoring trust in a name that was dragged through the mud for a long time.

  30. Stupidity tax by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    If people believe everything they read in a message board or a web site and don't bother trying to verify it, then they are stupid.

  31. Definitions by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    And fundamental human nature does need reversed

    That word, fundamental, I do not think it means what you think it means...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  32. What Could Go Wrong? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    How do you differentiate from American citizens here speaking of legitimate problems with our government--from foreign agents?

    In the new world, everyone is a suspected terrorist, and governments become paranoid and attack their own people.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  33. Re:Trool? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I don't believe in trolls. Everything less than violence is funny.

    Apparently you don't believe in stooges either.

  34. Re: Guns 'n stuff by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I've been pointing out that guns are pretty ineffective combat weapons and that people who believe in their armament rights (I've stopped referring to the amendments when talking about rights that the amendments are merely a sham at protecting). I also point out the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions and refer to them as the good guys. I also make people aware of Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton and refer to them as villains and darlings of the university and politics circles.

  35. Re: Guns 'n stuff by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I've been pointing out that guns are pretty ineffective combat weapons and that people who believe in their armament rights (I've stopped referring to the amendments when talking about rights that the amendments are merely a sham at protecting)...

    ...should insist on tanks and planes... FTFM.

  36. Re: Incorrect by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    Please stop using the term "cultural marxists" to describe the Social Just-us Wingnuts. Those vile, bigoted elitists espouse an ideology that's damn near the opposite of classical Marxism.

  37. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    Frankly, if what AC is talking about really happened, APK would never be able to post again. I can only see this as a positive development for the future of Slashdot.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  38. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    I found another thread about it that the lameness filter kicks in with certain code words. It's not just shadow banning, it's a complete blockage. In that example it's obvious APK spam (Personally I find him funny when he gets on a roll. He went after me a couple of times, but simple mockery and ridicule in return usually keeps it short, otherwise just ignore him, it's not difficult. Whatever you do, don't take him seriously), but it still sets a bad precedent since, like the response to the link said, so many of the front page articles are just click bait from their "news" aggregator also, and it doesn't help the journal section one bit, where there is about about a 400 to 1 spam ratio, which is too bad, I like using journals. I hope we don't lose them. Friending non-spammers filters out the crap, so it's not really an issue. But I still suspect the lameness filter is being used on "unpopular" subject matter also. For instance, if you say the word "trol"* more than three or four times in a single post, it will be blocked. The rest of the triggers are about as secret as the No Fly List. I hope some day that somebody exposes all of them. I find censorship much more offensive than any spammer or trol*.

    *Misspelling the word because I just encountered the filter! How do ya like that?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  39. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Ah, good to see you too... It was a long time ago. It's no longer important enough for me to bother looking it up. Do it yourself if you're so inclined. Otherwise, feel free to start over and drone on about it all you want. I've always been fascinated by the persona. And I would never expect someone like you to take me seriously. So, roll on, my friend. Since your entire gag will probably bang into the lameness filter, you probably need to come up with some new material. I'm dyin' to hear it. Make it good. We all could use a little levity.

    Please note, you don't have to talk about yourself in the third person :-)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  40. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and...? Anything else?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  41. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    ho ho ho... What's ya spammin' today?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  42. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It looks like I have attracted the kraken yet again (from sibling replies to yours).

    I have noticed certain all caps words trigger it, I even have trouble if I all cap "dns", which is a word that should be all capped.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  43. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    :-) Most excellent! You are hilarious! You reaffirm everything ever said about you. Please continue. I love this shit! Gimme more!

    APK's on topic in his hosts posts for stopping threats/speeding you up online. That's no spam.

    Of course it's spam. That's why you are being filtered. And you are permitted to refer to yourself in the first person. What are you scared of? You have no need to hide from me.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  44. Re:They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Yeah, looks like we fished him in for some fun. *catch and release* This stuff is great.. Much better to be part of the show than to just sit and watch. If you or anybody else are bothered by him, I'm more than happy to take all the hits. I hope the admins don't mind this little circus. One thing nice about the lameness filter is that it keeps him from getting stale and too repetitive. Make him work for his money, I say. As for the rest of us, alternative spelling can keep it out of the way for the most part.

    Let's watch and see what he comes up with next. I hope he's reading these.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  45. Re: They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Do I give a shit if you believe me or not?

  46. Re: They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 1

    I am not lying. We are looking at open sourcing the code again, but in the meantime if you don't believe me I'm not losing any sleep

  47. Re:Coren22 if you're so smart like you say? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Are you really the funky spammer known as 'apk', or just a cheap imitation? I kinda suspect the latter. How long has this gag been running now? Has to be damn near twenty years. Pretty impressive.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  48. Re: They already invested in Slashdot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Now I gotta ask, is there a reason that the code is not open source? Or does management simply state, *because we say so*?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  49. Re: They already invested in Slashdot by whipslash · · Score: 1

    It used to be open source lot of years ago. At some point the old owners changed that. That's all I know but we are looking into it now.

  50. Re:Coren22 if you're so smart like you say? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    :-) Is that all you got? C'mon, man, you can do better. Don't be so boring

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  51. Re:Coren22 if you're so smart like you say? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Still got you hooked in... You can't stop responding.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  52. Re:Coren22 if you're so smart like you say? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    You just can't stop, eh? I like that. 'Catch and release'. But you so repetitive. Can't you say anything else besides *I'm rubber, you're glue*?

    Looking forward to your next spam. Please try to do better. You wouldn't want me to lose interest, would you?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”