Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda? (rollingstone.com)

MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda" that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 "sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda."
The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets (including USA Today), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

Comments

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny when the Right screams voter fraud, the left calls them all stupid because they have no evidence.

When he Left screams voter fraud from Russian hackers that they have zero evidence of, we have to waste millions of taxer payer money with lawsuits and recounts.

Re:Yes

[admin7087]

Right vs. left, just stop that nonsense. There has been no right and no left for at least a decade. The divide is between extremists and people who stand with both feet on the ground. Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part is so far the Wisconsin recount has found a few examples of fraudulent votes - all of them for Hillary. Her vote count is now down by something like 15 in WI.

Re:Yes

[Tempest451]

Wait! Benghazi what? Lets not go into wasting millions of tax payer dollars.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question: is any of the money used to pay for the lawsuits and recounts actually taxpayer money? I thought it all came from Stein's campaign (donations).

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.

Re:Yes

[buss_error]

Right vs. left, just stop that nonsense. There has been no right and no left for at least a decade. The divide is between extremists and people who stand with both feet on the ground. Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.

I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I agree that extremism is more easily found, I'm not sure if that's because it's more popular or if it's simply because more individuals are willing to express it.
I do believe that both the right and the left engage in logical facilities (you should pardon the pun) left and right. A few examples:

Death penalty and abortion

Reducing taxes and budgets passed

Objecting to "nanny state" (vis a vi public support) by calling it racism, bemoaning food assistance while cutting access to birth control (Family Planning funding)

Loss of constitutional freedoms vs. gun legislation vs. disenfranchisement

Effectively limiting consumer protections (by Strengthening monopolies) while claiming to be pro-consumer

Preventing private right of action and forcing consumers to use binding arbitration (Might as well not even bother, you're not going to win even if you are right)

and on and on and on. I think the average US person has simply either gone nuckin' futz or they are lied to so completely and pervasively as to have no worthwhile information to base a rational decision on. It's so bad that I don't even bother talking to people anymore (haven't for the last 20 years). It's so bad that I am seriously limiting even discussion in fora such as here. Worse, it's no better in other countries, and even worse in some.

I blame it on the commercialization of journalism, actions by special interests, and the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in public (and many private) education. The only answer I've found so far is to simply smile, nod, and back slowly away from the more vitriolic of them, and to not bother with media news outlets anymore.

NPR, PBS, BBC and a few others are attempting to get people talking to each other. So far, I've witnessed this devolve into brutal beatings twice. Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".

Re:Yes

[zapadnik]

Not really.
The Left is all about Big State solutions, which comes under the rubrik of "Statist Collectiivism" at the state level and "globalism" at the international level.
The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power (the ability to enforce your will on the unwilling) is a zero sum game - the State only gets power by taking it from individuals, and vice versa

Of course there is a consensus that all States now require governments that can use force and coercion to take the wealth of the citizens. In this sense there is a "Uniparty" where political parties clothe themselves in the rhetoric of "Left" and "Right" but the implementations always require more taxation and more power for the State - which means the Uniparty has been drifting further and further Left. To dissent with this and assert citizens should be in charge is labelled "extreme".

What is considered "extreme" merely reflects what is outside of the fashions of the self-selection sociopaths who are the State (the State is an abstract entity, what the term actually means is the group of sociopathic 'elites' who claim the mantle of "State" to impose their will on others). The divergence between what the 'elites' (and their media sychophants) consider "extreme" and the bulk of the citizenry consider "extreme" has been increasing rapidly as the State moves further and further to the Left (Big State solutions). To the 'elites' and media who consider themselves to have transcended such things as family, borders, traditional culture, conventional morality, national sovereignty anyone who believes in these things is "extreme" - but only of they are Westerners. Any other nationality wanting these this is considered normal, just not for Westerners.

Hence we have the phenomena of Brexit and the latest US Presidential election where the 'elites' and media have views vastly different from those of the general population. What the elites consider normal and desirable (dissolution of nation states and creation of a single World government which pushes their agenda) is considered "extreme" by at least 160 million Americans, and conversely the media and 'elites' consider the desire for preservation of national sovereignty and individual choice that dissents from the elite's views to be "extreme". As always it is simply a matter of perspective.

Is the West being propagandized? yes, massively. Western media's best and most subtle propaganda technique is not in telling direct falsehoods, although that has become increasingly common, but more in what facts they choose to omit, They include any facts that follow their chosen 'Narrative' and leave out any facts that would shred that Narrative. Hence, reasonable people who don't check all points of view based their conclusions on half the facts and end up believing the media perspective (the perspective of the ruling 'elites'). Those that read more widely or have alternative sources of information that give more of the facts end up with different conclusions - mostly against the memes of the media and 'elites'. Once you understand that the propaganda comes through what is chosen to be talked about and more importantly what is not said, then you see an extremely consistent pattern - which means this is deliberate. Unfortunately this is invisible to most people, so they end up adopting the media and globalist positions very stridently and attack their fellow citizens, when it is the latter that is in possession of the more relevant facts.

So yes, the "Russian propaganda" meme comes from the media and elites. It may or may not be true, that is actually irrelevant. What it does is reinforce the chosen Narrative of the media and elites and provides them the excuse they want to crush

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the exact same things, so you're not alone.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

wank wank wank

if your skin color is more important to you than your culture or community then, yeah, get the fuck out

people are bored of pandering

Re:Yes

[zapadnik]

The attack by the globalist order was to advance the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" for her planned presidential run. The Muslim Brotherhood is allied with the transnational Left because the Brotherhood wear ties and suits and call themselves "moderates", and the transnational believe them and are too lazy to look up the Brotherhood's true beliefs in Arabic. We truly have incompetent people running politics (they spend 4 or 5 years in college, never had a real job, and think they are smarter than the other 7 billion people so should dictate what you can and cant do - such arrogance !).

Once Libya fell the massive arms stores there were transferred via Turkey to Syria - again to advance the Muslim Brotherhood agenda, and also to counter the expansion of Iranian influence. Of course, the exact opposite has happened and Iranian influence has increased massively.

The arms coming via Benghazi, as well as the $11 Billion of arms the Obama Administration sold to Qatar went to groups like Al Nura (AL Qaeda in Syria), Muslim Brotherhood groups, and eventually to the Islamic State. Arms also sent to Lebanon are used to equip Hezbollah.

A proper investigation of the activities in Benghazi, which was highlighted by the disgraceful lack of leadership and outright lying about the cause of the attack, would have exposed the Obama/Clinton policy of arming violent jihadis with Billions of dollars of arms.

The Benghazi scandal is not propaganda - the suppression of the facts around it are the propaganda. Besides the obvious propaganda of repeated memes the most invisible propaganda are the facts that the propagandists work to distort or outright hide from you. You are being lied to about Benghazi and its massive significance as the Obama/Clinton Administration tried to hide its involvement in the moving of weapons to arm Al Qaeda in Syria and eventually the Islamic State as they battle Iranian influence at the behest of the Saudis.

If these facts are new to you then your news sources have been feeding you propaganda and pretending Benghazi was less significant than it really was. Don't stand for this ! get news sources that will tell you the whole story - or else you will continue to be propagandized.

Re:Yes

[__aaclcg7560]

Serious question: is any of the money used to pay for the lawsuits and recounts actually taxpayer money? I thought it all came from Stein's campaign (donations).

From what I've been reading, there are direct costs and indirect costs. The donations are paying for the direct costs. The taxpayers are paying for the indirect costs of the extra people that the counties may need to hire to get the recount done in a timely fashion, especially if the ballots are being counted by hand. The recounts have to be done before the electors meet in two weeks.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny when the Right screams voter fraud

You mean when Trump screams voter fraud, the left calls it all stupid because it's all part of the Trump "campaign rock concert", the series meaningless, emotional sentences which only have the purpose of manipulating feelings of the audience? The right, meanwhile, is left with a lot of facepalming to do.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The only propaganda going on is being perpetrated by MSM. I've never seen such shoddy journalism and out right lies masquerading as journalism.

One of hundreds. "In this town hall neither of the candidates have seen or know the questions I'm about to ask." FACT: These questions were leaked and the host / moderator knew they were leaked to HRC. Simply atrocious and reprehensible behavior. These aren't journalists they are propagandists.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think there was no wrong doing and that the lives lost were not worth the investigation. I would suggest that you watch the videos on youtube of the congressional investigation of this . Real eye openers.

Be objective, gather information, and think for yourselves. Don't let the MSM think and come to conclusions for you.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I thouggt fake news already had a name?
CNN!

Re:Yes

[Kohath]

Ahh yes. "My side is sensible. The other side is extreme/insane/[insert slur here]." That's some well-reasoned analysis there.

Does your side actually do things to help the people whose votes you want? Maybe telling them to vote for you because you helped them might work better than telling them to vote for you because otherwise you'll call them names.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

The biggest sign of extremism for me is when someone takes a stand and declares their side to be the right one and the other side to be the wrong one. Loyalty to a party of faction should come dead last in priorities, Put loyalty to fellow citizens first, even if they have different political stances.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

Not anti-establishment, but those who want to establish their own establishment.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to reddit, you are needed there. You can have a nice circlejerk with other enlightened individuals about it.

Re:Yes

[BigBuckHunter]

Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.

It's people who begin their pontifications with "Actually" versus those who just say what they have to say.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

Trump said there were millions! We know he never lies or exaggerates. So where are they?

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

Seriously, drugs have a use-by date, after that you should be tossing them out.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the Right in the US is about Liberty and Freedom for each individual to live as he/she wants, I'd like to have the phone number of your drug dealer. It's good stuff he gave you (granted, the Left is no better)

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly in California and other states. There are 50 states, you know, and the majority of the voter fraud takes place in liberal strongholds where they can get away with it. It's still true that without massive liberal fraud, Trump would have won the popular election.

Re:Yes

[Tyler Durden]

I think you no longer have the right to call yourself "anti-establishment" when your man is about to be POTUS and his party will have majorities in the House and Senate.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I thouggt fake news already had a name?
CNN!

CBS.

They're fake, but accurate.

So they claim, anyway.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty.

I honestly didn't know that. So you mean The Right will support a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Or my right to consume mind-altering substances? Does it protect the rights of individuals to worship their own god (or worship none at all) by not placing icons of particular religions on federal buildings or force students to acknowledge a particular deity or by plastering worship of a particular deity on our currency? Do they protect the right of two adults of the same sex to enter into a marriage contract with one another?

Re:Yes

[Kohath]

Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".

How would anyone know whether they disagreed with you? A "reasonable discussion" requires explanations of your thoughts. A list of half-articulated observations isn't something people can "reasonably" discuss.

I'm sure some people will react and emote with you though. And congratulate themselves for being righteous because ... well, mostly because they enjoy thinking they're righteous and better than other people.

Re:Yes

[strong_epoxy]

NPR, PBS, BBC are the problem. I have to listen to an hour of their fake news and hateful slander of good Americans everyday. These are horrible people.

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

Eh. "The establishment" is the corporate/government/media complex. The corporations pick the policies, their bought politicians enact them, and then their media networks propagandize the populace as to why things that are clearly not in their best interest, like the mass importation of semi-retarded 3rd worlders for cheap labor for the corps, is actually right and moral and good and anyone who disagrees is stupid and evil. Anyone who's opposed to that system can still call themselves "anti-establishment."

Re:Yes

[admin7087]

I totally agree with you. I've actually more or less given up on public forums except for hackernews and a bit of reddit surfing (but not discussing). This is just another throwaway Google account after I deleted several /. accounts, all with excellent karma; I'm coming here less and less often, because the discussions have become too vitriolic - and I'm saying that as a Usenet veteran.

Re:Yes

[Bodhammer]

60,000 of them are in Virgina where Terry Mcalaugh illegally gave convicted felons the right to vote.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/...

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

What's the difference?

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

About 60 million people voted for Trump. Do you think there are 60 million white nationalists in the US?

You should read this if you still think there's EBIL RAYCISTS EVERYWHERE!!!!

This is among the reasons you lost, and if you don't fix it you're going to keep losing. To win, you must know your enemy and know yourself. You do not know your enemy.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

Convicted felons can have the right to vote, it's up to the individual states. The right to vote is more important than the right to prevent people you don't like from voting.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

It's all the same thing. Globalists who want their global powers to be in charge, and globalist who want a different group of global powers to be in charge. And conspiracy theorists who claim even other global powers are really in control, but really it's which corporate powers you want to be in charge.

Re:Yes

[Tyler Durden]

That's horrible. Why anyone would judge someone talking bout "the mass importation of semi-retarded 3rd worlders for cheap labor for the corps" as stupid is beyond me. Clearly your are the voice of level-headed insight and reason...

Re:Yes

[fredgiblet]

They don't really know themselves either.

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

I don't care what you judge me as. Am I right or not? If not, why not?

Re:Yes

[butchersong]

Trump swept the Republican party into majorities but don't make the mistake of placing them together. The "establishment" is still fully entrenched. It remains to be seen whether Trump and his administration will make much headway in dismantling the infrastructure of cronyism and blackmail (carrot and stick) that pervades Washington.

Re:Yes

[butchersong]

Yes but in this case the democrat governor tried to do an end run around the legislature of the state. He essentially interpreted his power to pardon to nullify the law preventing felons from voting. Just in time for the election:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virginia-felon-disenfranchisement-mcauliffe/496898/

Re:Yes

[Grieviant]

I've actually more or less given up on public forums except for hackernews and a bit of reddit surfing (but not discussing). This is just another throwaway Google account after I deleted several /. accounts, all with excellent karma; I'm coming here less and less often, because the discussions have become too vitriolic - and I'm saying that as a Usenet veteran.

Hackernews is an extreme left Silicon Valley wankfest where, much like Ars Technica, they're very intolerant of any opinions viewed to be insufficiently progressive. You often hear the regulars chirping about how insightful the discussion is compared to so many other "toxic" websites, but this simply isn't supported by any objective appraisal of the commentary. Spending years living in an echo chamber distorts one's view of reality.

Take your concern trolling elsewhere.

Re:Yes

[zapadnik]

This is not an argument. Of course, if you are ignorant of what has been going on then the facts seem strange to you. It is best that you quit the drugs entirely and pay attention to what the bad guys are doing around the World. You may not be interested in the Muslim Brotherhood and its global jihad, but the global jihad is interested in you. Being as ignorant as an ostrich is not a useful survival strategy.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power (the ability to enforce your will on the unwilling) is a zero sum game - the State only gets power by taking it from individuals, and vice versa

If you actually believe this after watching how Republicans act when they are in power, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an argument.

Seems fair. You didn't present any arguments either. You just made a long series of rather bizarre assertions.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, there are heaps more racists bigots than 60 million, the rest of them cant read or write.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta get established first.

You cucks just can't stop with the criticism of Trump, even though he hasn't taken office yet. He has done more as a President elect than any other President elect in history. All of it good for America.

What you are actually doing is projecting, I think. Your man is still in office, along with an entire bureaucracy appointed by people just like him over the last 50+ years.

Re:Yes

[harvey the nerd]

Many of dem don't work themselves.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you lack the basic functions to even comprehend your own sentences.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

So all the ex convicts voted as a bloc?

Re:Yes

[Tyler Durden]

Well first of all, the word "cuck" is nothing more than modern code for "nigg3r-lover"*. It would be more honest if you used that term instead. No idea how sense that makes though. Anyone who criticizes Trump must be a nigg3r-lover? Seeing African-Americans as equal human beings is a no-no again? No clue.

I wasn't meaning this as a criticism for Trump anyhow. My only point is people who are in, or soon to acquire, a great deal of power have no right to say they are anti-establishment. I would hate to see this phrase used for Trump and his fellow Republicans during their reign. Because then they'd be making excuses whenever their choices were harmful for the country saying, "It wasn't us, it was that durn establishment!" Nigg3r please.

Judging by Trump's appointments full of people who are mostly unqualified or downright offensive, and continued tweets that indicate every criticism of him is taken personally - it doesn't look good. (I swear he thinks the most brilliant person he ever talked to is the last individual who happened to compliment him - LOL). The only good I saw was nominating James Mattis to Secretary of Defense. I also liked the fact that he talked to the leader of Taiwan, although most foreign affairs experts say this is a big no-no.

* Apparently the lameness filter is flagging the N-word, otherwise that's what I would have used. Goddammit.

Re:Yes

[fredgiblet]

I'm curious to know which sources you use regularly. I've been dimly aware of this issue for some time, but haven't had much luck finding a real valuable news source.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

[]\[]igger

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

When society is pulled too far in the wrong direction, being in the middle is like being a bystander in robbery.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

> When he Left screams voter fraud from Russian hackers

What is this: Russian propaganda? Are you a Putin shill or what?

Re: Yes

[coteriescavenger]

You think that sounds crazy? When you finally get wind of how boldly they've been suppressing critical facts lately, you'll throw up.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not from the US, but 60 million appears to be about accurate.
Considering your post you'd probably be surprised at how many would say something retarded beginning with "I'm not racist but..."

Re:Yes

[gustygolf]

I didn't read his post at all like that. I read his post as "there are moderates, and there are extremists"

And that both republicans and democrats (assuming the US here) are diverging towards extremism.

In other words, there are three sides here. He is in the "middle side", if that makes sense.

Re:Yes

[Blaskowicz]

The Left is all about Big State solutions, which comes under the rubrik of "Statist Collectiivism" at the state level and "globalism" at the international level.
The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power (the ability to enforce your will on the unwilling) is a zero sum game - the State only gets power by taking it from individuals, and vice versa

I find this to be a weird narrative, although very common in the US it seems. What if the State wrestles power from corporations and other supranational or transnational entities? E.g., let's say the State takes over the healthcare industry and cleans it up big time, slashes costs dramatically, gets closer to universal coverage (like, you can get Medicaid if you earn under $200k, I don't know, that's an example).
I would say this gives more power both to the State and the individuals. (there's always more supplementary coverage to buy, anyway).

Also, that the Left is both collectivist and globalist is weird, perhaps you can pull that off in the US but in other places these are entirely at odds (e.g., globalism in the form of treaties, EU etc. dictates you privatize most assets like dams, rail ways and other).
More likely you have an "official" Left or "governing" Left (like the US democrats) that is actually right-wing and thus, globalist.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a hopeless endeavour to find the one true reliable source.
Personally Ive been a junkie for news for a long time now and I cant remember a time this confusing.
Its said that people see the world as part of a story. But right now it seems nobody has any good stories to follow.
Or if there is a narative some people could agree on, its heavily opposed.
Anyway, Id suggest to follow a bunch of news sites, best if they have completly different view points.

Some I vist regulary are: zerohedge, huffpost, russia today, peakoil.
For commentary I vist the archdruid blog.

Re: Yes

[Type44Q]

How about we compromise with a harsh but nevertheless accurate "culturally retarded?" Not that it's their fault... not that our society should be undermined and destroyed by their mass-importation, either.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those people would have voted for Clinton had she called herself a republican.

Re:Yes

[mjwx]

Not really. The Left is all about Big State solutions, which comes under the rubrik of "Statist Collectiivism" at the state level and "globalism" at the international level. The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power (the ability to enforce your will on the unwilling) is a zero sum game - the State only gets power by taking it from individuals, and vice versa

And other such fantasies.

The "right" have been more responsible increasing government size and welfare than the alleged "left" in the last 20 years. Mass surveillance programs draw their origins to the Bush govt in the US, Howard govt in Australia and all the way back to the Thatcher govt in the UK.

Re:Yes

[AmiMoJo]

The "anti-establishment" people voted for millionaire elites and career politicians. Trump, the people he has appointed to his team, and in the UK we have Gove, Johnson and Farage.

In fact the UK managed to get rid of its democratically* elected leader and replace him with an unelected one, who is of course a rich career politican too. She was chosen by the establishment.

It's more like "post truth nationalists" vs. everyone else (globalists, people who aren't post-truth, socialists etc.)

* by UK standards

Re:Yes

[AmiMoJo]

Of course there is a consensus that all States now require governments that can use force and coercion to take the wealth of the citizens. In this sense there is a "Uniparty" where political parties clothe themselves in the rhetoric of "Left" and "Right" but the implementations always require more taxation and more power for the State - which means the Uniparty has been drifting further and further Left. To dissent with this and assert citizens should be in charge is labelled "extreme".

Well, as a simple matter of fact the position that the state should have no power to compel taxes is rather extreme on the political scale. And it's not really fair to say that both parties are as one because they don't disagree on that position, because otherwise you could claim they are as one because of agreement on any number of highly unpopular, fringe ideas.

Hence we have the phenomena of Brexit and the latest US Presidential election where the 'elites' and media have views vastly different from those of the general population.

Brexit was won by the elites. The people heading the campaign to leave were Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, all career politicians and millionaires. In the US, Trump is part of the elite and has demonstrated his lack of concern for the common man on many occasions.

No, what Brexit and Trump demonstrate is that people will vote for demagogues, especially now we have reached a state of post-truth politics. The rebellion against elites was just a scam, created by other elites to get votes.

Re: Yes

[meta-monkey]

Sure, but I'm also saying the people who are staggering across the border, or the people we're dragging in from Somali to work cheap and vote Democrat...these are not doctors and engineers. These are people coming from places where the average IQ is in the 80s. I would consider that "semi-retarded."

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. There are probably not even a million white nationalists in the US. Trump also got ~40% of latinos and 12% of blacks. Were they white nationalists, too?

But you think there are, because of mass delusion and media fuckery. This will cause the left to continue to lose massively because they're standing there screaming "RACIST!" at people who know they're not racists, are not voting for racial reasons, and are likely not even racially conscious.

If I told you I can read your mind, and I know that even though you claim you're voting for a tax and foreign policy you believe are the best for your country, I can read your mind so I know you're really voting because you believe in magical purple unicorns who tell you how to vote, would I have earned your vote?

This is what happens when you scream "racist" at people who aren't racist. They don't vote for you. You just prove you're insane by failing to understand them while claiming you know what they're thinking and feeling. The left is going to keep doing this, and keep losing.

Re:Yes

[meta-monkey]

Keep this crap up, yo. Democrats will never win another election.

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

There are extremists across the entire spectrum of idealism. And there are multiple divides. In this age of soundbites, memes, etc, many people in the middle feel unheard or left out unless we're yelling something about the left or the right. It's like consciously falling into a sort of virtual mob mentality.

I wish all these damn liberal leftists could understand that but they're all too wrapped up in trying to destroy our freedoms and doing liberal leftist uuuuh things, uuuuh ...

TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!

Re:Yes

[Kirth]

I think you're pretty much right in regards of the analysis what is happening, but you've subscribed to some propaganda on who is doing what. Because the forces at play in the US are first and foremost authoritarian and to the right (the latter of which doesn't really matter in the scheme of things).

I think this here shows this neatly:
https://www.politicalcompass.o...

"left" and "right" are solely economic points of view. You could also call them "socialist" and "capitalist". There's nothing in there about "liberty".

If you think there is some great conflict between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at play there (or even "the Left" or "the Right" are on the side of "liberty"), you've just become the playball of propaganda. Because the only side here that's even playing is authoritarian, and it has won, it sets the policies, and orchestrates the propaganda. Of course it's nice to be able to constantly blame "the other side" for the shit you're doing. Which is what happens. Even if the other side happens to be firmly in your own camp.

Yes, there are people in the US fighting for liberty, but they're not "the Left" or "the Right", they're the ones that don't run your country. At all.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

..or EVER. Splitting opponents of the power elite into two groups has been happening since before christ was born.

Re:Yes

[Toonol]

The state can make a law requiring you buy their product; a company can not. (In fact, this is what happened with Obamacare.)

The state can forbid competitors; a company can not.

The free market is far more consistent with a political philosophy of individual rights.

Re:Yes

[kristianbrigman]

The most accurate division I've seen between 'left' and 'right', at least in the US, is the balance between mercy and justice - the left (=Democrats for the purpose of this article) prefers mercy to justice, the right (=Republicans) prefers justice to mercy. Some issues don't fall on this continuum (and many of them end up being about who receives mercy or justice), but a suprising number of them do.

Neither party has a monopoly on overspending, overregulating, corruption, etc. in pursuit of those goals... you will see general guidelines that are different (e.g. R = small government, D=social programs) but both will bend in pursuit of their overall goals... Politics is mostly how this gets worked out in the real world.

Example: Capital Punishment. Ds are the party of eternal hope - if there is any chance that even one killer could be rehabilitated, give them that chance, so it never makes sense to execute someone.
Rs are the party of avoiding more victims - giving someone a chance to be rehabilitated, means there is a chance they could kill again. That person's life should not be sacrified for the killer's mercy.
Both have merits IMHO. Currently, we balance this by allowing executions, but having them be somewhat rare - out of more than 15,000 murders (including manslaughter) in the US in 2015, there were 28 executions.

Re:Yes

[Toonol]

So all the ex convicts voted as a bloc?

Well, pretty close to it, or else the governor wouldn't have cared. http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000662

Re:Yes

[chihowa]

Thanks for saying this, as I was just about to say the same. His analysis is pretty good except for the attributions.

Re:Yes

[Wycliffe]

Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".

I have reasonable discussions with people I disagree with all the time. I can have conversations with far left liberals and far right conservatives with no problem. Now there are some that I can see are violently opposed to a different opinion and I quickly end those conversations or steer to more neutral ground. If someone thinks republicans are evil and mentioning John Stossel causes smoke to come out of their ears then you need to back off and pick at the edges as you aren't going to have any meaningful conversation trying to go head on but most people can discuss issues they disagree with without going postal. I personally like to talk to people with opinions different than me because I like to understand how the other side thinks.

Re:Yes

[cfsops]

No, he tried to apply a blanket restoration in contravention of the Virginia Constitution. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he could not do such a thing, but had to rely instead on performing individual restoration of rights as the Governor is permitted to do. So, the roughly 200,000 people whose voting rights were unconstitutionally restored had their voting rights revoked. Since that ruling and revocation, the Governor individually restored the voting rights of more than 60,000 in accordance with his powers under the Virginia Constitution.

Re:Yes

[cfsops]

You have laid out a grand series of assertions, with absolutely nothing to back them up. And then say that, if we don't simply believe what you say, then we are hopelessly stupid sheep fattened by the feces of propaganda. My friend, you are bizarre.

:P

Re:Yes

[painandgreed]

Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.

Actually, it's those that realize that politics are more complicated than dualistic descriptors can describe vs. those who don't.

Re:Yes

[Darinbob]

Does it matter? This is bringing in partisan politics. It's a disgrace in this country, and most countries. We should care about the citizens, not whether our side won or their side won. Ie, the decision about what to do should always be "is this the right thing to do" and never "which team is going to gain an advantage?"

As I see it the decision to do this may likely have been based on choosing teams; but the criticism against it is also about choosing teams. Where are the ones asking whether or not it's the right thing to do?

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have any idea how absolutely fucking nuts you sound?

cos if not that's truly fucking scary

Re:Yes

[david_thornley]

The Benghazi scandal is not propaganda - the suppression of the facts around it are the propaganda.

I'm going to pick this out.

A hostile Congress launched several expensive investigations into what happened at Benghazi. They were not disposed to suppress facts against Clinton. They all found no wrongdoing on Clinton's part. This is very good evidence that Clinton is not at fault. Personally, I'd blame the Republican Congress who reduced the budget for embassy and consulate security to much less than Clinton asked for.

You made a lot of assertions that, as far as I can tell, are baseless, but this one is definitely wrong.

Re:Yes

[david_thornley]

The Stein campaign was complaining bitterly about the cost of asking for the Wisconsin recount, so I'd be surprised if there were significant additional costs there. The costs in Michigan and Pennsylvania were considerably lower, so there are likely indirect costs there. Last I looked, her campaign had not raised about $10.5 million.

Personally, I consider verification of close votes to be worth spending my money on.

Re:Yes

[AutodidactLabrat]

What part of "Tracked facebook links to Russian Propaganda outlets" is not evidence?
As opposed "No I won't show my data set on illegals I claim voted"?

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Protecting?

I don't know any conservatives who are comfortable voting for corrupt, power hungry devil worshippers.

There have been some on the right (at least fitting some of that description) but that was not common knowledge at the time of voting.

With everything we knew about hrc and the Democrat party I'm surprised that tens of millions voted for her. Perhaps the ballot stuffing was a lot larger than suggested, and she lost because it couldn't counteract the number of appalled Democrat voters who refused to vote for her.

I think people are a lot more moderate than the politicians they are asked to vote for.

Re:Yes

[__aaclcg7560]

The Stein campaign was complaining bitterly about the cost of asking for the Wisconsin recount, so I'd be surprised if there were significant additional costs there.

I came across an article that suggested that the powers to be are jacking up the costs to discourage the recount. Meanwhile, a Republican in Nevada requested a recount and it got done with minimal amount of fuss.

Re:Yes

[TheRaven64]

The US has been fed a dichotomy of two opinions for several decades: One side believes that the government should have the power to oppress the people. The other side believes that this is inefficient and that oppression is better handled by multinational corporations. The two main parties flip between these two ideologies depending on who controls the government and who looks more attractive to big corporate donors.

Re:Yes

[zapadnik]

The investigations struggled to obtain the evidence they needed because the Obama/Clinton Administration made the survivors sign non-disclosure agreements on pain of prosecution. Did your propaganda sources omit that little fact, and deliberately kept you ignorant as a result. No wonder the Leftist leaders your worship treat you with contempt with people like Podesta calling you "unaware and compliant". It seems the collectivist Borg Drones like you are unaware of what is being withheld from you.

If you think the investigations were permitted to know the facts they you can easily answer the following questions for me (which would FORCE me to agree to your point of view, if you can answer them all):
1) Where was President Obama on the night of the attack for each hour, and what was he doing? this was his JOB 2) Where was Secretary Clinton on the night of the attack for each hour, and what was she doing? during her 2008 campaign she made a specific statement about being "there for that 3am call" - so where was she at 3 and all the other hours ? this was her JOB
3) Who made the decision for the various military nearby assets to stand down ? Obama? Clinton? or (seems likely) Jarrett?
4) Who made the decision to lie to the public about the "Innocence of Muslims" narrative, when Wikileaks show they all knew it was a jihadi attack within 5 mins?
5) Who made the decision to persecute the Innocence of Muslims filmmaker video, who became the first true political prisoner in the US for 150 years?
6) Why did they continue to lie for weeks, to the family of the victims and in front of the coffins of the victims?
7) Was the motivation for lying because of Obama's false election narrative that Al Qaeda was defeated? or because they were supplying weapons from Libya through Benghazi to Turkey then to the jihadis in Syria, which would result in the arming of Al Nusra (Al Qeada in Syria) and eventually ISIS?

Have you not worked out that you know so little about this subject David that you are merely repeating the disinformation you've been fed? by keeping you ignorant you are kept "unaware and compliant". Yet you mistakenly think that those who know more than you are the ones who are wrong and you attack them - just like the State-worshipping Borg Drone you are trained to be. That is precisely why you believe in all the State's fake news which makes you attack anyone telling the truth.

Just like you accept the incorrect global warming computer simulations of TCS values which are a massive factor of 3 higher than observed reality, you have no idea what really happened - because the answers to the important questions are being suppressed using every underhanded mechanism of deceit and disinformation that the Obama Administration can muster. When the State-coordinated media calls you 'smart' for following the State propaganda line you actually believe them. That is not very smart at all, David.

Re:Yes

[zapadnik]

Not an argument. I present several facts, which of them do you dispute ?

I'll help you out to show just how far behind the eight-ball you currently are, and how much information you are not being told (deliberately, the Wikileaks showed Haillary's aide Jon Podesta considers you "unaware and compliant"). I simply want you to understand what has been going on and the State-cooperating media have not been telling you:
"Barry Rubin: Assessing Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Every other Leftist regime in history uses deception to gain and maintain power. Do you really think this one is different? that they wouldn't use Lies of Omission to hide what they are up to from you? because if you knew then you would not support them - and about 50% of the USA have already woken up to the lies. The question is, when will you?

The media and government collusion in the US is currently WORSE than the Soviet Union, it is just a lot more slick so people cannot spot the disinformation, deception and distractions as easily. But once you see it then you understand it is not mere Confirmation Bias, but it is systematic and pervasive. Like I said, about half of the US population can now see this.

Cave

[NotInHere]

We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.

Re:Cave

[vsavkin]

> We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.

That's what Russian propaganda wants you to believe, and you are spreading it, being a Putin's "useful idiot". According to this anonymous study, of course.

Re:Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take you out of that cave, will you die?

Re:Cave

[cfalcon]

> We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.

Right, but my iStone is smoother and thinner than yours.

Re: Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Allegory if you leave the cave you are enlightened but you can't convince anyone else to leave the cave because they don't understand you anymore and know no better life.

Re:Cave

[msauve]

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Re:Cave

[meta-monkey]

It would be very painful.

Re:Cave

[serviscope_minor]

Right, but my iStone is smoother and thinner than yours.

My note 7 stone is warmer than yours.

Re:Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

>grab xyzzy

Re:Cave

[Toonol]

You're a big guy.

Re:Cave

[drinkypoo]

My note 7 stone is warmer than yours.

Since you're strapped to it, it should keep you warm for a lifetime.

Re:Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.

This Russian propaganda propaganda would have been a little more effective if PropOrNot hadn't started every single press release with, "Yo dawg...."

Re:Cave

[meta-monkey]

For you.

Re:Cave

[Oswald McWeany]

My windows phone works better as a brick!

Examples?

[meta-monkey]

It would be really amazing if someone could show me a single piece of this propaganda they can trace to the Russians. Where is the evidence?

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats should learn something from President Elect Trump and this election. You need to have your scapegoats and bogeymen in place before the election happens not after.

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fairly standard tactic - when you know something bad about yourself (in this case, the fact that the MSM is mostly pushing fake news for the DNC) you accuse your opponents of doing the same thing, thereby distracting from your own wrong-doing (blatantly making stuff up about Trump) while generating a false-equivalence ("oh, they do it too"). It's a very standard DNC tactic and you'll see it all the time, like when they were trying to blame Hillary's illegal use of a private email server on Colin Powell.

This is just more of the same - liberals making up stories about conservatives, blaming them for doing what they're doing in an attempt to muddy the waters.

Re:Examples?

[cfalcon]

I mean, it's bullshit for the reason the summary said- they basically accused Ron Paul of being a KGB agent. If the Russian propaganda machine is secretly vigorously promoting conservative libertarians, free market libertarians, and every right wing blog they can name, give me a fucking break. Just like when they made a list of "fake news" sites that somehow included every single right wing website except fox news, and it was some liberal professor who made the list. Just because the right has loonies doesn't mean that the left loonies should be dug up and given a grand platform to blather.

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect most of the propaganda is in fact written in Russia for the Russians to read. Then again, I don't visit those discussion boards in my native language where some people have reported of seeing such content that can be classified as propaganda. Russia has had its foreign sympathizers for a long time, twisting discussions on the own accord (or stealing nuclear secrets and planning communist revolutions, crazy eyes burning) no matter what the Russians do. It must be a form of Helsinki Syndrome..;)

Re:Examples?

[meta-monkey]

The only fake news site (besides CNN el oh el) I saw this election paraded around was the same one NPR talked about after the election. I think it was abcnews.com.co, and it's actually made by a lefty to "prove" how right-wingers will fall for stupid shit. Now, I am a right-winger, and when you sign up for the right your welcoming kit includes a firmly affixed tinfoil hat. So every time I saw something from that site posted to a right-wing forum or comments section, immediately people would respond "that's fake, don't spread that around." So lefty makes fake news, posts it to right-wing sites himself, right-wingers reject it, and then he goes to NPR and says "lol right wingers are dumb because I posted my fake news on their forums." It's the "hurr durr I was just pretending to be retarded" meme.

You would think if this evil russian propaganda were so widespread one could post a screenshot of one of the fake stories and give us some context. "Oh, Putin wants people to think X, so here's his fake site where he posted this story, and here it is being propagated around the net..." Nope. I wonder why they can't show us anything like that? Really gets the old noggin' joggin', huh?

Re:Examples?

[dave562]

I would not be so skeptical. I used to read a lot of Zero Hedge. I still read RT.com from time to time. If you accept that ALL news has a bias, it becomes apparent. In the case of ZeroHedge, their bias is that economy is about to crash, again. And the price of gold is about to skyrocket, any day now. And the American political system sucks, which they are actually correct on.

Propaganda is entwined with the reality of nation states. The United States puts out propaganda about Russia. They do the same in return.

With the internet, the propaganda is more obvious and easier to spread.

The older I get, the more I realize that everyone has an agenda. Zero Hedge has an agenda. The Washington Post has an agenda. The Communist Party of China has an agenda.

The thing is, life is short. At this point, I do not have time to focus on other people's agendas unless they intersect with and further my own.

This whole "Russian Hackers Fucking with Democracy" is the greatest propaganda coup of all time. It still blows my mind that the media managed to completely obfuscate all of the evil shit that the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton were up to by bringing the Russian bogey man out of the closet. (Not that it matters, but I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump).

In my brief 40 years as an American, I was born into a world where we were supposed to be scared of Russians. To being told that the Russians weren't a threat. To being told that the Islamists that the CIA funded to fight the Russians were the threat. To now being told that the Russians and the disciples of those we trained to fight the Russians are a threat.

To be honest, I think the biggest threat to America at this point is America. Between the ignorance of the electorate and the iron grip that the military industrial complex has on the economy and the government, we are like the big, retarded bully who doesn't even know why he's angry, but sure as hell is going to beat the shit out of anyone who calls him retarded.

Re:Examples?

[Beeftopia]

In my brief 40 years as an American, I was born into a world where we were supposed to be scared of Russians. To being told that the Russians weren't a threat. To being told that the Islamists that the CIA funded to fight the Russians were the threat. To now being told that the Russians and the disciples of those we trained to fight the Russians are a threat.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia." -- George Orwell, "1984"

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or like when Trump claimed the election was rigged because he was the one rigging it, right?

Re:Examples?

[AmiMoJo]

Russia stands to gain a lot from Trump's election. Scaling back NATO, the US looking inward and playing a smaller role internationally etc. Putin certainly seems to get on with Trump better than he does with Clinton too.

Of course most of it is still conspiracy theory bullshit. Maybe the person releasing Clinton's emails was working for the Russian state, maybe they were just acting for their own reasons.

By the way, what right wing websites would you consider reliable? Don't tell me Breitbart.

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a single piece of propaganda easily traceable to the russians.
Enjoy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-35413134

Re:Examples?

[astrosmurf]

This is a single piece of propaganda easily traceable to the russians.
Enjoy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-...
P.S.
Posted this as anonymous coward, but suddenly remembered my old login.
D.S.

Re:Examples?

[Rockoon]

Looks more like a story claiming there was "propaganda" on a Russian news outlet.

Pretty sure a Russian news outlet isnt targeting any propaganda at Americans, and in this case the "truth" behind the "propaganda" is that the girl in question was merely the victim of child abuse instead of..... rape?

I'm going to assume that your citation categorically represents what someone would find if they tried really hard to find evidence via google, and that everyone that tried really hard, but you, realized that they couldnt find any.

Re:Examples?

[knorthern knight]

> Russia stands to gain a lot from Trump's election. Scaling back NATO,
> the US looking inward and playing a smaller role internationally etc.

You realize how Reagan destroyed the USSR? He goaded them into a very expensive anti-missile defense race, and the USSR bankrupted itself. The US military industrial complex is threatening to similarly destroy the US economy. Diverting some of the useless overkill into the civilian economy might help the average person.

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

George W Bush got on reasonably well with Putin too, in so far as they didn't spend the whole day looking like someone killed their dog they way Putin and Obama do whenever you see them in a pic together.
Doesn't mean W was a russian plant. (not that you're saying that)

Re:Examples?

[William Baric]

So a 13-year-old girl declared she was gang rape. A journalist picked up the story and some Russian TV channel talked about it, without making sure the rape was real. This kind of sloppy journalism is common everywhere. I live in Quebec and here absolutely all mainstream media will do it (the only difference is our media will hide the ethnicity of the alleged rapist if he's black or Muslim).

Then Russia's Foreign Minister made a comment implying the German police could try to minimize the case to protect asylum seekers. Considering the German police did exactly that after the Cologne attacks (as well as other multiple attacks in other German cities), also considering that the police admit it was at least statutory rape, yet try to minimize this as "child abuse", I'd say the comment was justified.

Then, the BBC decided to use this story about this sloppy journalism and a somewhat legitimate comment from a Russian Minister to try to spin it into some kind of "Russian propaganda".

The truth is this article is an example of anti-Russian propaganda, not an example of the supposed Russian propaganda. This BBC story is an example of the typical "fake news" that plagues our mainstream media. And the fact that you can't see it is frightening.

Re:Examples?

[guruevi]

How is that propaganda?
A) A 13yo disappeared for a full day and got raped
B) The police considers it consensual so it won't investigate
C) Parents and neighbors are outraged and protest

Unless you want to believe this:
A) An adult having sex with a 13yo is rape, unless they're immigrants.
B) The police is right in not investigating this and only considering this as an instance of child abuse
C) If white people are protesting, they're neo-nazis.

Re: Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the summary?

Re:Examples?

[dunkelfalke]

Reagan just took credit for the breakup. The actual reason was that the USSR was a multi - ethnic state and when the central government stopped suppressing speech, the resulting wave of nationalist unrest broke the country up among ethnic lines causing several wars between former soviet republics. The first of these wars actually started before the breakup and the last one is the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine - that one used to be a cold war for over two decades.

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Trump could resist the military industrial complex pressure as he has his own money.

Re:Examples?

[meta-monkey]

The older I get, the more I realize that everyone has an agenda.

Exactly. Everything is propaganda. Bias is a part of human nature. I prefer when people clearly state their biases as it's easier to see where they're coming from. I think a large part of the problem we face is people who believe that such a thing as "unbiased journalism" exists. There are people who don't think CNN has an agenda. And that agenda is not always congruent with the best interests of the viewers.

This is turning into a real problem. When Trump won the NH primary Huffington Post's cover page said "NH GOES RACIST, SEXIST XENOPHOBIC!!!" Literally that. All caps. I wondered what would happen if Trump wins the whole thing. Will people who believe Huffington Post wake up and realize "Oh, people in New Hampshire voted for Trump because they're tired of $10 heroin on their streets, not because they hate blacks and Mexicans and women, and Huffington Post has been lying to them." Or will they freak the ever loving fuck out because they believe there are secret nazis EVERYWHERE! From my FaceBook feed, the answer is the latter.

People need to read the narrative, read the counter-narrative, check the sources, and see who's lying about what in which cases. But instead here we've got the mainstream media trying to propagandize the people that anything that doesn't come from them is "fake news." Stay in that bubble kids! Never look for an alternative point of view! Do what we tell you vote how we tell you!

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's 2+2? And don't tell me 4!

Re:Examples?

[dave562]

And all of the above comes from people lacking discipline and integrity. If they had their own agendas, they would fact check the alternatives being offered to them.

The issue is, that for them, what is being offered to them are not alternatives. They are REAL. Teh intarwebz are reals. CNN is Double Plus REALS!!! What they see on the screen, and listen to on the radio in the car, and watch on television are the only reality that they know.

Nobody wants to admit that their buttons are being pushed. Nope. Not in America. The land of free will and freedom of choice.

Re:Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. The thing with Zero Hedge is that it is typically so absurd when it is spinning that it becomes rather easy to spot. The funniest is when Russia stuffs up and they come out blathering like a two year old, hoping that by making enough noise everyone will ignore the elephant in the room. That said, the financial data they pull is usually pretty insightful (though nothing any city banker doesn't have access too) around just how much the financial elite are screwing with us and laughing about it as they cash their cheques.

I also feel that the 'looming gold rally' thing is becoming a bit of a weekly cartoon segment as whoever started it tries to back themselves out of a corner in increasingly absurd ways.

Re:Examples?

[wyHunter]

You told them about the tinfoil hat! Just please, don't mention the aluminum jock strap.

Re:Examples?

[wyHunter]

No, it's because Obama is far to the left of Putin and Putin thinks he's an idiot.

No, comrades, it's doubleplusgood

[Theaetetus]

... at least, according to the people who stand to make $160 million over the next two years "fighting propaganda" by reading blogs and blacklisting any they disagree with.

Fortunately, they won't come for Slashdot. This is News for Nerds, we never discuss things like politics or rights or surveillance...

In soviet russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

propaganda propagandizes y.......()="*ç./////**"/()%/)Ç%ç

########## recursion error, please reboot universe

Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just another "Not our fault!" lie from Hillary! supporters.

"Look! a RUSSIAN squirrel!!!!"

Hillary! lost 2008's Democrat nomination to an upstart from nowhere despite the process being rigged for her.

Hillary! damn near lost the 2016 Democrat nomination to someone who wasn't even a Democrat despite the process being rigged for her.

Hillary! lost the 2016 Presidential election despite the media doing its damndest to help her.

Hillary! might have had a chance had if she weren't an unlikable corrupt harpy and if she had some accomplishment to her name other than marrying Bill.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knew that Clinton wasn't an appealing candidate. But some people were stupid enough to think that Trump being another terrible candidate would translate to votes for Clinton instead of, you know, voters just staying home.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[0100010001010011]

One of her campaign was on Chuck Todd this morning. He ran down a list of things Clinton and the Media have blamed the loss on.

He asked point blank if they ever considered blaming themselves.

And the answer was the longest possible way to say "No".

Some people are so inside their own bubble of a bubble they have no clue what is going on. Look at how many staged "OMG Clinton out Grocery shopping" social media things we got.

I'm over Red Scare.

My grand parents were told to be scared of the russians, but it's not what killed them. It was tobacco companies saying "Eh, nothing to see here".

My parents were told be scared of the Russians but it was a lack of access to cancer treatment that killed my dad.

I'm being told to be scared of the russians. I got other shit to do. (And the same goes for the average Russians guy like me being told the exact opposite).

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[cfalcon]

Well, Americans didn't stay home.

CNN right now says Trump has 62,693,993 votes in the popular vote. That's more than any Republican has ever gotten in the popular vote (closest was George Bush in 2004, with 62,040,610). Obviously, these numbers are influenced by there being more Americans than before, and Trump is at 46.3% of the popular vote, while GWB's reelection was 51%. It is off by a few percent only, however- whatever the magnitude of Trump's thing, it still only affected a couple voters out of every hundred.

For comparison, Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008, and 66 million in 2012, to Clinton's 65 million.

I feel that the solid performance of the 3rd parties this time around is the big thing not being talked about. Gary Johnson in 2012 set yellow team records for a Libertarian with 1.3 million votes. In 2016, he got over 4 million votes- Wikipedia says it is "more votes than the previous eight Libertarian presidential tickets combined", and was over 3%. The Greens got .36% of the vote in 2012, and 1% of the popular vote.

The reason that the 3rd party tickets are interesting is that *both are the same candidates as in 2012*. It is implausible that Johnson and Stein quadrupled and tripled in popularity- it is much more likely that many voters who consider themselves leaning towards the libertarians or the greens, but who usually vote for republicans or democrats, instead did not, driven away by the candidates.

America didn't seem to stay home, is my point- they definitely chose third party options a lot more than normal, though.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knew that Clinton wasn't an appealing candidate. But some people were stupid enough to think that Trump being another terrible candidate would translate to votes for Clinton instead of, you know, voters just staying home.

Yep.

Trump won less of the white vote than Romney did in 2012, and more of the black and Hispanic vote.

But RAAACISM!!!!

Whatev. The only people who believe those incessant racism and sexism (and ....) accusations any more have already drank deeply of the kool aid.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[meta-monkey]

True. Very few people bother to come out to vote against someone. They come out to vote for someone. The only arguments I could ever get from Hillary supporters was "she's not Trump" and "experience."

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Rockoon]

I think if the Libertarians had put up Nicholas Sarwark, their party chair, instead of Gary Johnson then they would have done much better.

The guy leaves a very good impression.

Gary Johnson was a good Governor (the only reason he isnt still governor of New Mexico is term limits) but a bad candidate. Sarwark would be a good candidate.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[cfalcon]

It's possible the Libertarians would have done better with someone else, but given that Johnson has done the best of any Libertarian in the history of the party (twice- his 2012 run was a record for the party too), it seems a bit of an odd argument. I know, I know, the main party candidates are the big drivers here, but performing well in 2012 is still a legit mark in his favor regardless.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Oswald McWeany]

True. Very few people bother to come out to vote against someone. They come out to vote for someone. The only arguments I could ever get from Hillary supporters was "she's not Trump" and "experience."

I have always voted third party for President. I didn't like any of the third party candidates this time. Better than Trump and Hillary, but I still didn't like them. I was rather ambivalent about our local elections, none of them bothered me enough to want to vote (kinda pointless here anyway, the same party wins everything).

If I had to pick my favourite candidate it would probably have been Evan McMullin, he was the only guy who I saw as not dangerous for the job. Seemed to not be an ideologue, but based his ideas on common sense. I think he would have been the best candidate that would have made the most people happy. Still, he didn't get me out to vote...

What made me vote? Trump, not for but against! I consider him a potential threat to democracy itself, I wouldn't be surprised if elections were "put on hold for our safety" in 4 years time. I considered voting for his main rival, Hillary, therefore, a civic duty. I really don't like Hillary. Bill was probably the best president America has had in recent years, but I don't like Hillary one bit. I probably would have voted almost anyone else other than Hillary given another option, I consider Trump that bad.

So yes, in my case (and I'd be surprised if not many more cases) I voted to vote against someone (Trump) not for someone. I don't think it's as unusual as you think, lots of people show up to vote to vote against someone not for someone. You are correct about the only reason I voted for Hillary was she is not Trump though.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[interkin3tic]

>Hillary! might have had a chance had if she weren't an unlikable corrupt harpy and if she had some accomplishment to her name other than marrying Bill. You're right. If she had accomplishments like, say graduating from Yale law school, spearheading the clinton health care reform effort, surviving 30 years of ruthless attacks by conservatives, being a senator, being secretary of state, running the Clinton foundation which helped to lower HIV treatment to affordable levels among whatever else it does, and winning the democratic primary by a large margin, she might have, I dunno, won millions of more votes in the presidential election!

/s Seriously? Lack of accomplishments when compared to Don Trump? +4 insightful? "Unlikeable harpy?"

I think it's wildly optimistic to suggest that Russian propaganda is driving this unfortunately. I would prefer to think there weren't people out there this badly deluded, but I can't, Americans really are so stupid they think the DNC rigged it against Sanders and the electoral college overturning the vote is totally 100% fair.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Mike Van Pelt]

I suspect the Libertarians and Greens did better is that 1) they were on the ballot, and 2) were not the malign Ooma-Loompa, and 3) were not the evil shrill harpy. (The LP is generally my "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote, and that's basically why I voted for Johnson this time.)

No, I was not "throwing away my vote". In California, I didn't have any meaningful vote to throw away; Hillary was going to get over 60% of the vote no matter what. Might as well use what little vote I had for someone who, though with lots of his own problems, didn't make me want to call for an exorcist.

Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose

[Anonymous Coward]

It's definitely not throwing away a vote to vote third party. It sends a very strong message to the major parties about how to actually GET those votes, and it also sends a message to the people that maybe we should have a different system such as instant runoff, etc. There's no other way to record those notions other than a third party vote.

Recursion

[Gunfighter]

Wait.... how do we know whether or not this /. post is propaganda about propaganda about propaganda?

This recursion stuff gets confusing sometimes.

Re:Recursion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. It's fake reporting all the way down.

Re:Recursion

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down. It is clearly propaganda about propaganda about propaganda about propaganda.

Re:Recursion

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the source from CNN?

Re:Recursion

[__aaclcg7560]

Sorry. It's fake comments all the way down.

FTFY

Re:Recursion

[Anonymous Coward]

turtles all the way down

Re:Recursion

[Anonymous Coward]

Including the one above.

Same old tune.

[Charcharodon]

One man's propaganda is another man's truth.

Propaganda, insider information, hate facts. Who cares. More power to the Russians if they can disrupt a bunch of corrupt people from getting their way (DNC). I'd love for them to start poking at the Republicans next.

Sun light sanitizes all things. Keep dragging the truth from all the dark holes it is hiding in.

Re:Same old tune.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were shedding light on truth, then I might consider supporting their efforts. "Pizzagate" on the other hand.....mmmmm.... sorry ....that doesn't count as "shining light" on anything. That's just mudslinging.

The US has propaganda, and the Russians have propaganda. So, some people conclude that they are on the same level of bad-ness in that area. Sorry, there just isn't any comparison. Russia's lies and obfuscations are orders of magnitude worse than the US.

On the other hand, over the course of the last century, the US has far surpassed the Russia in terms of meddling in other countries. The Americans are masters at that.

Re:Same old tune.

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's propaganda is another man's truth.

Just like how the Left loved to use Wikileaks to demonize President George W. Bush but hated it when it exposed the corruption of Hillary Clinton.

Re:Same old tune.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Russia's lies and obfuscations are orders of magnitude worse than the US.

Another statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up. But, if we assume your baseless statement has even a smidgen of truth to it, I would say that Russian efforts at propaganda are something to be admired. The US spends billions of dollars funnelled through NGO's like USAID to subvert other countries governments, often with mixed results. OTOH, if a hack like Adrian Chen is to be believed, the Russians have a bunch autists on the payroll hacking and creating fakes news that gets widely distributed across the internet through social media and, oftentimes, "real" news outlets. This all done at a fraction of what the US spends for the CIA and State Dept. to produce propaganda. Very cost efficient those Ruskies are. No wonder Trump has a high regard for Putin.

Popcorn time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are some of the true believers starting to realize they took repetition in lieu of evidence and critical thinking?

PropOrNot

[Rockoon]

The secret group PropOrNot also listed as "allies" many journalists and publications that have never heard of the group before the article. as is evidenced by their twitter responses.

When this came to light, PropOrNot edited their web page to list them only as "related projects."

To translate what really happened here is:

The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.

Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

From the list of examples you gave, which you insist are verified facts, I gather you're a Trump supporter and Fox News/Breitbart reg.

Talk about pathological liars and fake news.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove him wrong then.

If you want your mind blown look into how many news organizations actually 'do the news'. They buy it from other organizations. Then just read it word for word. Conan has several videos that show it to good effect. Very little to no vetting is done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Also 'the left' has the emails of the guy running the campaign saying how to collude with the news. How to cut people off if they stray. How to make sure 'they are not happy'.

I personally do not read much, if any of it. At this point it seems to be a few billionaires fighting out their ideology with us as pawns. There is very little actual 'news' on many of those stations and papers. There is however, an overabundance of opinion. I can get one of those for myself and not have someone tell me what it should be.

You want to defend them. That is natural. They have been guiding you in your life for years. They are like a comfortable shirt. But you need to look at said shirt and realize it smells and has a big hole in it.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube.

You mean "investigative journalism is now only done by "independent folk" with a hidden agenda, grade 8 education, no scientific or literary training, and a webcam. They are the best source for American news.

Do you understand now why the stereotype is that American's are stupid?

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump to Hannity: After further review, a border wall in the state of Texas is not needed:

"Now, there are certain places you don't need a wall, because you have, you know, you have mountains, you have other things. You have large and rather vicious rivers."

You're a Chump who voted for Trump. Can you imagine the ridicule Hillary would've taken if she had said that?

Re:PropOrNot

[alvinrod]

Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

If the last decade has shown us anything, it's that this is what people actually want to consume. Even prior to the rise of new media, most papers or news networks had some form of political slant. All we're seeing now is a magnification of this. Most people only want something that conforms to their existing beliefs, not an objective account. Knowing that we've gone from the media producing slanted views of stories towards opinion pieces about events and are now heading towards fabrications or opinionated hyperbole to the point of absurdity.

If most consumers don't care about much beyond whether a news story supports their beliefs, it's far easier just to invent something that does that than it is to take a real story and add spin or to try to produce an objective and neutral report. To some extent we've always had this, and one needs look no farther than the tabloids in most grocery stores to see that this is not a new phenomena, but has always been around. The difference is that people haven't adopted to tabloids being available in web form. To the untrained eye they look essentially the same as any other news website, whereas most people wouldn't make the same mistake with a traditional paper and a tabloid.

With traditional media, the barrier to entry was high enough that it wasn't easy for huge number of tabloids to survive at one time. There was a physical cost to printing and you likely needed an advertising department on its own which adds further cost. The internet has removed most of those problems. Almost anyone can set up a website now and there are plenty of frameworks that make it easy for even unexperienced individuals to have something that looks reasonably professional, third party ad networks make it trivial to add to your site and no needed to have someone handling the customers, and social media has made it incredibly easy to have your site brought to a wide audience almost overnight due to network effects and ease of sharing that weren't present before. The great democratizer of the internet has made it possible for the everyman to have a printing press and the same reach as a big corporation. Unfortunately most people are idiots. This result doesn't seem terribly surprising in retrospect.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

The reporting on "fake news" has been so bad, it's hard to believe it's nota deliberate propaganda effort, except for the fact that that explanation makes no sense either (i.e., why would the mainstream media be actively attempting to discredit themselves?). Really, when you're writing an articles about hoaxes, you'd think checking if your source is a hoax would be a step you'd make sure to include in your preparation.

"Fake news" in the sense of articles with Onion-level journalism being passed off real is something that is new in the past several years and I've certainly seen people post things to Facebook to be informed that the source is actually "satire", but that's a completely different problem from sites like Mother Jones or Breitbart being very slanted in the stories they post and perhaps sometimes letting statements that agree with their agenda through without fact checking. That's maybe poor journalism, but not fake news.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove that every single one those stories are fake. That's the standard retort, isn't it? And it's not enough to exhaust one list, because then twenty posters will each post a whole new set of links as followup.

Sorry, I have things to do today. That is a waste of my time.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

Paid shill is also a hacker that knows how people voted.

Re:PropOrNot

[GameboyRMH]

After all those putdowns of the "mainstream media" you praise the doctored and misleading videos that shut down ACORN? Credibility = 0.

Re:PropOrNot

[Dutchmaan]

Conservatism 101: If you can't discredit the information itself, then discredit the messenger.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

To translate what really happened here is:

The Washington Post was[...]

[...] bought by the owner of Amazon.com, the most blatant monopoly around.

Re:PropOrNot

[quantaman]

To translate what really happened here is:

The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.

Not quite a "fake article", but an article based on a report that used a questionable method for identifying "Russian propaganda".

Basically a site was labelled as distributing Russian propaganda if it regularly posted articles that reproduced current Russia propaganda narratives.

That sounds legit, but the problem is that a lot of anti-establishment sites push the same kind of narratives. A story getting pushed by RT as Russia propaganda might also be pushed by an independent site as their own fight against the establishment. And they get labelled as promoting Russia propaganda, which they technically are, but that wasn't their intent.

Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

You know I actually thought you were being sarcastic when you wrote that first sentence.

The WP article got some secondary reporting, and then it got questioned, typically by those same secondary sources.

Note the first publication in the summary, Rolling Stone, is considered pretty damn progressive. The WP themselves even commented on the matter, though it a much less direct way than I'd like (hopefully their still refining their follow up piece).

Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.

Ahh, so when you say "investigative journalism" you mean actual fake news.

Re:PropOrNot

[guruevi]

Black people aren't the only ones with camera's you racist shithead.

The problem is indeed that the mainstream does very little to no original journalism, all the stuff about police abuses in the last few years have not been "reported" on by journalists but rather grew on social media into the news articles.

Same goes for this election, neither side had any 'investigative journalists', just a lot of digging up dirt on both aisles but very little substance as far as policies that either candidate had. Pretty much all news sites were just copy-pasting the political promises from their respective web sites which were proclaimed to be an unbiased source of information.

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberalism 101: If you can't discredit the information itself, then discredit the messenger.

CAPTCHA : burned

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

"other publicans were duped" - and it's pretty hard to dupe a publican, they've heard all the stories a thousand times before!

Re:PropOrNot

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr you realized you're wrong so it's time to run away and pretend you have things to do.

Re:PropOrNot

[penandpaper]

Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.

This is probably why 'news' has turned into 3rd party twitter feeds."Did you see what this person said on ze Twitters! ZOMG, You should feel how we think you should feel about this."

It really seems that those outlets really don't know how to handle Twitter and the like when there is nothing to report on in a 24 hour news cycle.

Rolling Stone not exactly credible.

[Anonymous Coward]

They lost a multi-million dollar lawsuit by publishing an article that wasn't fact checked at all, and turned out to be completely fabricated, and written by a hack "journalist" with an axe to grind.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-rolling-stone-loses-lawsuit-20161104-story.html

So I wouldn't exactly put "Rolling Stone" in the category of credible news sources, since they themselves have been a source of "fake news".

Re:Rolling Stone not exactly credible.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rogue journalist responsible was held accountable for her actions in writing a story she knew to be false. Her editor and publisher likewise.

Looks to me as if things are working as intended--journalist held responsible for her story.

You can complain all you want about MSM, but until you have something else in place that provides at least as much accountability as the current system does, you got nothin'.

Fuck post-factiness.

Re:Rolling Stone not exactly credible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha, I love it. Everyone is accusing everyone of being fake news.

Re:Rolling Stone not exactly credible.

[Toonol]

Everyone is accusing everyone of being fake news.

That may be the best possible outcome. Extreme skepticism is preferable to extreme gullibility.

Living in Belarus under 98% of russian media

[Anonymous Coward]

I can say only one.

Taking in account recent Russia innovation on media coverage through "patriotic" filters.
If you can see the media somewhat related with Russia - just use the correction factor 0.0

I.e. multiply the information you got from Russian media (or Russia-driven like RT or Inter in Ukraine) to the factor mentioned above - an you will get unbiased opinion.

Taking the facts as they matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how Billary was successful in distancing herself from all that dirty Russian money, and how easily the entire mainstream media presence crammed itself into her pocket, you can bet there's a propaganda machine hard at work here in the USA. And it ain't no commies neither.

What pisses me off is how she's convinced nearly half of American voters that the red on her hands is neither communist coin dust nor the blood of tens of thousands of innocents.

And shame on you if you disregarded that link because it looks non mainstream. There's a media war afoot and we the people are no longer buying the lies of Wall Street's chosen one.

Wait...

[Rick Zeman]

...could we be seeing propaganda about propaganda about propaganda?

Re:Wait...

[Kohath]

Never fear, Mark Zuckerburg is working on it now! Soon all those propaganda stories will be replaced with paid advertisements.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

...could we be seeing propaganda about propaganda about propaganda?

Exactly. It's just too hard to keep hold of. Unfortunately, the government can't ban it because of that pesky Constitution. The corporate gatekeepers can, though. Better ban it all, just to be safe.

Somebody mod this story down

[smooth wombat]

This story presents facts about Russia's troll factory in St. Petersburg, just as I have done in numerous previous postings and got hammered by the Russian trolls. Go ahead, check my most recent postings to see how the trolls mindlessly mod me down for reporting facts about this troll factory, about the continuing shipments of cargo 200 from Ukraine (i.e. dead Russian soldiers), the terrorists in Ukraine who openly admit Russian soldiers are fighting there and supplying them with arms and munitions, or the Russian soldiers who state they have been sent to Ukraine and have fought there, and finally, the law which Putin signed which bars Russian mothers from talking about their sons who have died while fighting in Ukraine or even talking with other mothers about these deaths. Or course the graves of these dead Russian soldiers say otherwise, as do reports from eyewitnesses and families.

This story need to be modded down in like fashion. Wouldn't want the Russian trolls to have to see the facts of their dear leader's propaganda industry.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[Anonymous Coward]

You for got to add the obligatory "Wake Up Sheeple" like all good nutcase conspiracy theorists.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[cfalcon]

That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA! You're a poopy head!

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[smooth wombat]

No, not every piece of right wing journalism is fake, but enough that stories from them should be suspect.

Further, neither did I say anything about Russian spies. I said Russian trolls who, as you pointed out, deliberately try to insert enough fake "news" or falsify factual stories to divert attention or obscure facts. As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. When confronted with the truth they go into overdrive in St. Petersburg in attempt to do everything to discredit the facts, most specifically going after either the person posting the facts (me) or where the story comes from.

Even when Putin admitted he sent Russian troops into Crimea to steal it, Russian trolls still denied their dear leader's own words. They made every excuse for why the story was fake EXCEPT for the fact those are Putin's own words. In other words, even facts coming out of Putin's mouths are lies in the world of Russian trolls.

And that is what this about: countering blatant lies with the truth. Using facts to pummel trolls, get them to twist themselves into such a ball of anger they climb over themselves in a vain attempt to extricate themselves from the ball of lies they've spewed. It's quite funny to watch them first deny the facts, then attempt to deflect, then finally come full circle and deny their own words. What's especially funny is they're so simple minded it's very easy to get them to admit they're Russian trolls. Since they're all using the same script handed to them from their handlers, they use the same words and phrases in every post so their comments stick out like a sore thumb.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[cfalcon]

> As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I'm personally totally convinced that this happened, because I saw it happen in real time as did you. Even slashdot wasn't immune to this, IMO, and I absolutely saw it on other forums.
This is *totally separate* from the "Russians helped Trump" claims, however. Trump has huge organic support among his base, as witnessed in the primaries. I did see a bunch of Russians (who identified as such), saying that they really liked Trump. Trump enjoys huge popularity in Russia (and a lot less popularity in some other parts of Europe). So finding openly Russian posters endorsing Trump or shitting on Clinton was no more surprising than finding a British poster who endorses Hillary and shits on Trump. The idea that the Russian government is successfully feeding disinfo to constitutional conservatives is left wing conspiracy tier claims.

> It's quite funny to watch them first deny the facts, then attempt to deflect, then finally come full circle and deny their own words.

I'm glad you're amusing yourself, but the simple fact is that you can't meaningfully fight shills by playing by the rules. I respect that you try, however. Here's a standard exchange, going exactly as you stated:

(post on a topic)
(shill comes in with shill points)
(you argue with shill)
(shill flatly denies stuff)
(you link to sources)
(shill deflects implications)
(you demonstrate the deflections are invalid)
(shill flatly denies their above words)
(you demonstrate their own logical incoherence, prove that they are a liar, and move on)

And here's how every forum on the internet displays it to all users except the ones who have way too much time on their hands:
(post on a topic)
(shill comes in with shill points)
(you argue with shill)
(shill flatly denies stuff)

The point I'm making is that shills make use of posting tricks that use the mechanisms of the discussion boards against the other users. This means that by the time you get down into the weeds, the shill has succeeded. You aren't going to convince a shill, especially not a foreign government shill. Your entire goal should be to succinctly argue enough that anyone who cares will not accept the shill arguments uncritically, and maybe even do research themselves. Shills are fighting for mindspace of readers, they'll yield any battle that doesn't gain them ground in that one area, because they aren't fighting that battle.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[quantaman]

That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.

There are paid Russian shills for sure, but no matter how extreme I'm always skeptical that any particular poster is a paid Russian shill. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, and there is no shortage of stupid people on the Internet.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that every person who isn't anti-Russia is Russian? Maybe some of us are taken by that Russian propaganda :P

All jokes aside, I'd wager there are plenty of people who read the news attentively, who look at all the angles, and can comfortably defend a stance that may be more popular with Russian media, etc. I mean, at least accept that they *could* just be people taken by some sort of Russian propaganda. Otherwise, does that mean that everyone who sides with Western propaganda is living in a Western country or American? There are plenty of those in some countries, Vietnam is a good example (if you talk to anyone who teaches English in Vietnam, many idolize the United States, which is strange given what the US did in that country).

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[Anonymous Coward]

That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.

Does it not blow your mind that it's the Russians spreading, wait for it, right-wing propaganda?

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupidity only goes so far.

Re:Somebody mod this story down

[david_thornley]

My big surprise was finding that Russia thought Slashdot worth sending shills into.

I'm not claiming that all the pro-Russians were shills, but there were several accounts on such subjects as the Russian Anschluss in Crimea or the Russians shooting down an airliner that seemed to be awfully doctrinaire, had a slightly distinctive style, and had even less justification than the typical Slashdot troll.

Wait a minute

[willoughby]

I admit I don't keep up with this stuff. I thought the North Koreans were the bad guys I was supposed to be terrified of. Now it's the Russians? The vodka people? Damn, I only have so much time to be afraid. Make up your minds.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey someone has to be the new boogey man. First it was terrorists, then pedophiles, now the Russians.

Re:Wait a minute

[Kohath]

It's all Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

satire is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Said Senator Rob Portman(R) at the Senate panel hearing: "This propaganda and disinformation threat is real. It's growing, and right now, the U.S. government is asleep at the wheel."

"Mister President we must not allow a fake news gap!"

Re:satire is dead

[meta-monkey]

"They're looking at someone else's fake news instead of our fake news! It's not fair!"

"now" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now? You mean by "now" the last 100 years ?

"I admit I don't keep up with this stuff." - an understatement if ever.

Their list is beyond Russian propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually looked at their website. They emphasize Russian propaganda (because it's sexy?) but their long list includes lots of sites that pump out other bilge.

F Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Mongrel slav. Little bully.

Rolling Stone? Washington Post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sabrina Ruben Erdely and Janet Cooke couldn't be reached for fabulous comments?

immune system flanked

[epine]

Who knew that fact checking was an essential component of the human immune system?

Unbeknownst to him, all is not well in the harem. His wife and one of his mistresses are independently plotting his demise. The wife poisons the water in his canteen, while the mistress punctures the canteen so that the water slowly leaks out.

The Sheik sets out on the journey. After a few miles he feels parched. He unscrews the cap on his canteen and finds, much to his displeasure, that it is empty. He soon dies of dehydration.

Question: who caused the Utahan fracker's death, the wolf-calling media bias Republican or the relative-identity-politics Democrat?

Moral of the story: no time like the present to grease the squeaky wheels. And if that doesn't work, concrete shoes.

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

Yes, so much depends upon one yellowish-green wheel to muck the mules, situated at the goddamn factual (and spectral) midline.

Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Kohath]

The "fake news" narrative is getting old. She didn't lose because of "fake news", she lost because people don't like her and because poor folks don't see Democrats in power and think "my problems will be solved" any more.

No one is going to vote any different based on telling stories about Russian influence, even if they're true stories. And you won't be able to censor the Internet effectively. If you try to, it will backfire on you.

If you want the next Democrat candidate to win, here's a suggestion for Democrats: help people. Don't just pick fights. Don't just point and jeer. Actually do something to genuinely help. Do it with a motivation to help rather than to get even with people you hate and maybe help someone in the process. Help Americans to get votes from Americans. Help a broad, inclusive population of people if you want votes from a broad population of people.

If you don't want Democrats to win, then just keep fighting. Keep calling everyone a racist or some other name. Cater exclusively to SJW crybullys who want to scream about transgenger microaggressions and cultural appropriation. Keep doing nothing for regular people. And keep telling yourself you lost because of "fake news".

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[elrous0]

^ A million times THIS

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Rockoon]

She didn't lose because of "fake news", she lost because people don't like her and because poor folks don't see Democrats in power and think "my problems will be solved" any more.

As has always been the case, its the economy, stupid!

You don't get voted in when people are getting fucked by the things you support.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[thrich81]

What you said is true, but at the risk of igniting derision in many subsequent comments, Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election. This has been endlessly 'litigated' on /. but the fact remains that some people's votes don't count as much as others in the presidential elections and Hillary got the majority of the lower weighted voters. In total more people 'liked her' than they did the 'winner'. And no one rational says those were 'millions of illegal votes'.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Kohath]

Given a different system, people might have voted differently. Hillary might or might not have won in that case. Anyone can make up whatever story they want about something that might have happened but didn't.

She still lost because people don't like her -- the "more than" or "less than" someone else doesn't change that.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Anonymous Coward]

>Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election.

LOL. Gosh, its too bad that none of her advisers told Hillary that she should have geared her campaign to winning the states that would give her the most votes to win in the electoral college and not just a simple popular vote. You'da thought she would have known that the last time she ran for President.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never understand how someone can say that 3 votes are more important than 55 votes. Is it the misleading language used when talking about swing states?

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Johnson, in a heavily red state. If my state was competitive, I would have voted for Trump. You can't play hypotheticals with factors that would have substantially changed the behavior of the participants.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election.

Oh, I get it . . . you're talking about the Superdelegates' votes, right . . . ?

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me counter you in a respectful manner.

Electors are selected by the states, not popular vote. The idea was that a couple of highly populated states don't tell the larger number of low populated states what to do. This mean Wyoming gets a fairly good say about who is president, each person there has a much bigger say in it than each person in California. That being said, California still gets 55 electoral votes to Wyoming's 3.

It's a compromise of Congressional representation. Each state has equal say in the Senate, meaning Wyoming has the same power in the Senate as California. Each state get population representation in the House. Wyoming gets 1 vote to California's 53 votes in the House (where all bills should be started). Done this way to prevent large states screwing over small states.

Electoral College is a compromise between House and Senate for who picks president. A side effect is election fraud gone crazy in 1 state is not likely to swing the Presidential vote, but using popular vote a single big state could produce enough fraud to swing the entire election.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hillary angle is getting old. Fake news isn't a problem because Trump won, it's a problem because it's being systematically and purposely used to poison discourse and destroy the entire political system of your country (which is based on a degree of mutual respect and confidence that there really is something called 'truth', even if it may be hard to determine sometimes).

Fake news is a massive problem in its own right. Hillary vs Donald was a sideshow. (A cataclysmic one, for which the whole world will pay dearly. But still a symptom, not a root problem.)

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Kohath]

Fake news ... it's a problem because it's being systematically and purposely used to poison discourse and destroy the entire political system of your country

For a lot of us, it was poisoned to death at least 10 years ago. And we said so at the time, and no one cared.

A cataclysmic one, for which the whole world will pay dearly.

Speaking of "truth", please explain how you know the future.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[Anonymous Coward]

This story has nothing to do with election results. The main function of media these days is to comment on other media. That kind of cheap and easy content filler is like crack to the mainstream media, the alt-whatever, and all the social media in between (the more they can be outraged at each other the better). The discovery of the fake news meta-story was the discovery of a perpetual content machine. Thats why most of the news today is that yesterday's news about fake news was fake.

That kind of weapons grade content reactor always gets co-opted into the culture wars - pointlessly, which is kind of the point - so it's no great surprise to see you still banging on about Kang and Kodos.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[david_thornley]

There's no comparison between the nomination campaigns and the general election. The primary obligation of the DNC and RNC was to pick good candidate (how successful they were is another question). That does not necessarily mean the most popular candidate. I speak as one whose first Presidential vote was for McGovern in 1972.

The general election is supposed to be impartial, which is an entirely different thing.

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[wyHunter]

Oh, but wait, globalisation is GOOD and the fact that you lost your $50 per hour job and are now making $10 is just 'collateral damage.'

Re:Hillary lost because people don't like her

[wyHunter]

Yes, the electoral college. Why those of us in smaller states don't get ABSOLUTELY screwed over by California and New York , just MOSTLY screwed by them. Look a the counties she won and you'll see why it's a great system we have.

Fatal flaw of Democracy

[Tempest451]

It is an idealistic notion of one-man, one-vote until you realize that the person who studies the issues, understands the world views, and makes an educated choice has the same vote as a person who makes their choice based on rumors and colorful advertisements. Clearly being liked is far more important to far more people than being qualified for elected office.

YO DAWG

[Anonymous Coward]

I herd you liek fake news....

It's simpler than that

[argStyopa]

"The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months"

You mean, roughly coinciding with HRC's failure to mobilize her base, and dawning recognition that she wasn't simply going to ascend the throne as planned?

Rather than invent a giant Russian hacking cabal, it's simpler to recognize:
- fake bullshittery news has been with us on the internet since...the internet. Election seasons in particular have always been rife with "did you hear" watercooler talk.
- its far easier to blame "them" on the internet than to accept that "Liberalism Ascendant" wasn't perhaps as inevitable as some thought, and a really shitty candidate CAN still lose an "in-the-bag" election
- not every story that HRC (note that all the 'false news' stories are one-sided; apparently nobody spread false tales about Trump? Really?) claims was fake was, ipso facto, fake. We seem to have quickly and conveniently moved on, for example, from what was obviously some serious seizure issues that have been hand-waved away as "fake news"

Re:It's simpler than that

[Tempest451]

It was never one thing. The GOP had 8 years to craft a strategy against HRC. They knew she would be running after Obama and keeping the negative spot light on her was second only to discrediting the Obama administration. Clinton was no "shittier" than any other politician, so the only way for the GOP to win was to indict politicians as a whole. This lead to Trumps win and even thought it was not the way they wanted it, they were more than willing to jump on the bandwagon.

Re:It's simpler than that

[Anonymous Coward]

> Clinton was no "shittier" than any other politician
You say that, but at her level you'd almost have to be actively trying to get into as many controversies as she did.
You'd think that after all those years of people gunning for her she would think "maybe I should be extra careful in everything I do", especially since she wants to be president.

Re:It's simpler than that

[butchersong]

Clinton was no "shittier" than any other politician

If you do a bit of googling you'll see that most (all?) of the secret service agents assigned to Hillary had a poor opinion of her. Agents were instructed to avoid making eye contact for example lest they feel her wrath... Most politicians can at least put on a jovial and endearing affect -this is what makes them successful politicians. Even given that we are talking about a very low bar, that she failed to endear those around her to her, that she instead tended to alienate and offend those who spent time with her does in fact at least in my view make her "shittier" than the average politician in my view.

Re:It's simpler than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans don't like her. Not because she is a democrat or female, but because she is a disgusting, highly corrupt person. They didn't invent her involvement in Watergate. They didn't invent her involvement in running offence for Bill's rape charges. They didn't build her e-mail server and write her responses to getting caught, multiple times. They didn't write her speech calling a large portion of the country deplorables. They didn't give her the smug haughty "I just smelled a fart that wasn't mine" expression she wore all the time. They didn't make her give speeches for millions of dollars where she told all of the Wall Street big wigs that she was their homie. They didn't make the DNC trash Bernie's chances. In fact, the DNC started their own campaign of purposely having their people vote for Trump in primaries, thinking they could sabotage the RNC's chances. Real fair, real democratic. Good politics. Wow. I am so bummed out by people these days.

Re:It's simpler than that

[david_thornley]

Being nice to Secret Service agents is almost completely orthogonal to being a good President. Do you think Jimmy Carter was a good President? He was certainly the best human being to become President in my lifetime.

In Soviet America

[dave562]

Propaganda Russianizes You

Most likely.

[Qbertino]

I know from personal sources what US intelligence black-ops and their propaganda moves are capable of and have pulled of in the past to manipulate the public, so I'd say it's pretty likely.

Then again, that doesn't make Mr. Putin a nice guy or his regime an oderly one. It's just that the public US debate gives the Russians to much power and their own system to much credibility IMHO.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[unixisc]

Once they gave up on PA, the exercise is worthless, since it still won't be enough to overturn the results. Jill Stein is running a scam and is successful doing it - she can keep all the $6-7M that leftist dupes give her.

Yes we are ...

[CaptainDork]

... always blaming Russia.

"Honey, I took the garbage out like you said, but the fucking Russians put it back!"

We can't comfortably blame China, because we need them.

Anyone will buy into the narrative that "Russia did it."

We knew it was bullshit when the US said, "It's Russia, but we don't know if it's state actors or an individual or individuals."

Any of us can "be" Russia at any time.

--

In any case, the elephant in the room is, "Why can't the US protect the data it owns?"

This Russia narrative directs criticism away from the real problem.

And ...

The DNC leak was an inside job.

They only got EMAIL!

Anyone who could have gotten to the other stuff: donor lists, employee personal data, SSN, ground strategy, candid political assessments, etc., would have done so.

Russians my ass.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[serviscope_minor]

Jill Stein is running a scam

Liar.

Jill Stein has said precisely what the excess will be used for. It's not a scam if the money is going where she says it's going.

Media concern about fake news ironic

[Beeftopia]

Only after the election, after months of telling us Clinton had a lock on the election, NOW the MSM is suddenly howling about "fake news."

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Re:Media concern about fake news ironic

[Dutchmaan]

From what source do you get reliable information?

Re:Media concern about fake news ironic

[Beeftopia]

About events without a political implication? Local, established media is best.

About events with political implications? It requires consulting multiple sources, with the MSM as one of those sources.

Re:Media concern about fake news ironic

[Dutchmaan]

with the MSM as one of those sources.

OK.. so what are some of the other non mainstream sources for political implications?

Re:Media concern about fake news ironic

[Dutchmaan]

...ya, didn't think you'd answer...

They let the ban on propagandizing citizens expire

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Three and a half years ago the US government, under the Obama administration, let the ban on propagandizing US citizens expire - and immediately began writing and spreading "fake news".

From an FP article dated July 14, 2013:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. governmentâ(TM)s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

So the only thing new here is US citizens noticed one of the government's renewed, official, domestic propaganda operations.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[jbn-o]

Jill Stein is running a scam and is successful doing it - she can keep all the $6-7M that leftist dupes give her.

Evidence? Ironic and sad that in a story centered on a lack of evidence (Democrats have yet to prove any Russian voter interference) you'd raise this accusation without proof.

Go read the well written wikipedia article

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a well written and researched Wikipedia article on fake news that covers much of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

It is well worth a read. Make sure you also read the talk page and scan the edit history for examples of warfare in action This is very much a front line, it's moving fast, and most of the comments here are incorrect on the subject. There most certainly is a very concentrated effort to fill US citizens heads with a dust cloud of nonsense.

Get Your Meta On

[jbond23]

It was the Russians who did it. Nope, 4chan. Right, Russians on 4chan. Lulz!

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[__aaclcg7560]

See subject: [...]

This is Slashdot, not Alt Right. Posting the same comment multiple times doesn't make it any more correct than the first time. Get off the Internet and live in the real world for a change.

Russia vs the USSR

[unixisc]

I agree w/ you about the Russians now, but as far as the Soviets went, your ancestors were right. You are conflating today's Russia w/ yesterday's Soviet Union, when in fact, Putin's Russia has more similarities w/ the Romanov empire than their communist successor.

The Soviet Union, particularly after WWII, had a worldwide goal to spread Communism wherever it could, w/ the ultimate goal of making all the world Communist. Which is why they had so many intellectual allies in countries as disparate as Vietnam to Angola to Ethiopia to Nicaragua. Communists in all those countries were happy to take Soviet aid in taking over their countries, and in return, be client states once they came to power. And they had a constant supply of cash from the Soviets once their economies tanked - like Cuba. In Europe, you had the iron curtain, and a nuke heavy border where the Soviets could march in anytime and trigger a war. And the Soviets did have a record of invading countries, be it Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Afghanistan. As far as the US went, the long term goal of the Soviets was to make more and more countries Communist until the US was either isolated, or Communist itself. And they were prepared to take that to a nuclear war if needed.

While it's true that Putin is an ex KGB agent, he is not a Communist: he is a Russian nationalist. For this reason, Communists or Leftists around the world have little reason to fawn on him. Putin's pet cause is Russian nationalism, and any sign of Russian glory anywhere makes him happy. For instance, he lauded Israel for being a country where Russian is the main second language, after Hebrew. That despite his support to Syria. His friction w/ Ukraine is based on his desire to co-opt Russians into Russia, and was triggered by Ukraine declaring Ukrainian its sole official language. While he did call the break-up of the Soviet Union a tragedy, it was b'cos it left millions of ethnic Russians in other republics, where they stood to become second class citizens.

So yeah, what Putin is doing in places like Ukraine is worrying, but he has a very specific platform of Russian nationalism. But it is far more localized than Soviet designs were.

Re:Bogus downmods anyone? lol... apk

[__aaclcg7560]

Doing unjustifiable downmods to hide truth on YOUR PART is weak & you know it

I don't moderate on Slashdot. That makes your statement FALSE.

* So fuck off, ok?

You need to something about your anger issues. Venting in public is not healthy.

P.S.=> ANYTHING I wrote is easily substantiatable fact - which just KILLS "your kind" doesn't it? Yes & that's why you tried to "hide it" w/ downmods (which I can post in UNLIMITED FASHION easily to get you to "run dry" of those unjustifiable downmodpoints - lol, you can't even WIN AN ELECTION - do you think you can win vs. me? NO way)... apk

I'm a moderate conservative. We're difficult to kill.

Propaganda of propaganda of...

[amanaplanacanalpanam]

In accordance with the customary scandal du jour naming meme...this shall henceforth be known as Propogate!

Re:Propaganda of propaganda of...

[amanaplanacanalpanam]

Or of course the (more accurate) alternate spelling, Propagate

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[unixisc]

Okay, so PA won't be recounted - they've passed the deadline. MI's AG has said he'll move to block the recount, so nothing will happen there. W/o PA, recounting MI and WI is worthless: even if they flip those 2 states to Hilary, it won't change the overall results.

So does Jill Stein have any mechanism and plan to return these donations when the recount ends? Answer is no: she's said that their costs are running higher, but the recounts ain't even happening in PA. Which is a way of disguising the fact that she plans to pocket the cash for the Green Party once the recounts end/get rejected/aborted.

Re: Yes (Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud)

[Ranger]

It's funny when the Right screams voter fraud, the left calls them all stupid because they have no evidence.

When he Left screams voter fraud from Russian hackers that they have zero evidence of, we have to waste millions of taxer payer money with lawsuits and recounts.

There is a difference between voter fraud and election fraud. Voter fraud is when an individual is able to cast a vote they are not supposed to. So far there has only been 4 cases of actual voter fraud this election. Election fraud is on a massive scale where hundreds or thousands of votes are changed or suppressed. It is easier to change the outcome of an election with a rigged election. Republicans falsely claim that voter fraud is a massive problem, so when they control state legislatures, they gerrymander districts and pass onerous voter ID laws that make it difficult or impossible for people who don't generally vote Republican (usually people of color) to vote (they don't need Russian hackers). This is a form of election fraud (but legal). Other forms of election fraud are tampered with ballot boxes like that has been reported in the Wisconsin recount. Democrats claim election fraud. They are not the same or equivalent. Election fraud can be harder to prove or do much about.

We need a balloting system that is auditable. A recount isn't an audit. An audit checks to make sure the system is working as it is supposed to and that votes are counted and reported accurately. This usually means some sort of paper trail. You can still use electronic voting machines as long as it prints a record that can be viewed.

As a side note, I favor an instant-runoff balloting system so that voter preferences are recorded, so that a candidate in a multi candidate election, a candidate doesn't win with a plurality of votes (Candidate A gets 39%, Candidate B gets 37%, Candidate C gets 24%. Candidate A wins but 61% didn't vote for him).

Extremeism lost

[SuperKendall]

Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.

Not from where I'm sitting. From everything Trump has said and done after the election, he's actually been quite reasonable - it's Clinton supporters that have gone insane, and during the election were pulling every dirty trick possible to win. Reasonableness triumphed over extremism for once, I'm hoping it's the start of a trend.

Re:Extremeism lost

[Anonymous Coward]

From everything Trump has said and done after the election, he's actually been quite reasonable

Can you give an example?

Re:Extremeism lost

[david_thornley]

Relatively few Americans consider Trump's cabinet choices reasonable, and only some of what Trump says is reasonable. (Wanting the theater to be a safe space for politicians?). The biggest dirty trick of the election was Comey's bringing up Clinton emails near the end of the campaign, and that was anti-Clinton (I don't know if it was really pro-Trump, but definitely anti-Clinton), and that's probably what gave Trump some of the states he carried. There is some statistical evidence that certain voting machines may have been tampered to change votes to Trump, enough to justify investigation. The leaders in voter disenfranchisement have generally been Republican (I'm not saying that all Republicans are in favor of it, or that Trump was, but that when it happens Republicans tend to do it).

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[serviscope_minor]

So does Jill Stein have any mechanism and plan to return these donations when the recount ends? Answer is no:

http://www.jill2016.com/how_wi...

By no, you mean of course yes.

Re:Explain the downmod then

[__aaclcg7560]

See subject: Nobody disproved my points (they're easily proven FACTS is why) so I'll do as I please & watch "your kind" RUN DRY of 'downmodpoints' as always, lol... too bad for you & "your kind" ('soros losers', lmao).

I've already told you that I'm not a moderator. I don't have mod points to waste.

* :)

I'm sorry to see that you have a bump on your head. Yes, that would explain a lot.

Also - do yourself a favor before you play "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.' - get a psychiatric sciences degree, a formal examination of myself given in a professional psychiatric environs & a license to practice it 1st before you make a BIGGER FOOL OF YOURSELF showing your "delusions of grandeur" @ being a psychiatric pro with WEAK off topic illogical ad hominem attacks that fail vs. me (just like your downmods ALWAYS do).

Let me guess... you're an L. Ron Hubbard fan.

P.S.=> You're easy to kill - you do it to yourselves everytime thinking you can "push me around" when I shit ALL OVER YOU easily negating your bs... apk

So what?

and libertarians fighting for social justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.

versus the rest of us.

Read the well researched Wikipedia article

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fake News Website" as a part of computer security.

There was plenty of evidence! This is the way it will be written in history while America sleepwalks into a kleptocracy. There was plenty of evidence.

You're very clever young man

[rdelsambuco]

"Very clever," said the old lady. "But it's fake news, all the way down." AKA: Postmodernism eating itself.

Re:They let the ban on propagandizing citizens exp

[vel-ex-tech]

Maybe I'm dense, but isn't it Congress' job to renew laws that have expiry dates? I skimmed the article but it didn't seem to clarify what I'm confused about. Is it the case that the R team did their right honorable duty as true statesmen to renew that law and Obama failed to sign it? The R team did have a majority in at least one branch of Congress in 2013, didn't they? My memory is hazy.

I mean, good grief. The president isn't a dictator. That's also why I'm not very worried at all about Trump! Trump! Trump! or even Darth Pence.

Also a good reason to have contempt for the D team when it had control of both houses of Congress 2008-2010. They could have passed something less corrupt than Obamneycare.

"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit trying to tell me what to do using illogical off-topic failed ad hominem attacks & downmods https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53421217/ PROVE ME VALIDLY WRONG instead (you can't).

* Wasting your own time is your business - it's inefficient & wasteful, mine isn't....

("Ne'er do wells" make me laugh - they're TOO EASY to outsmart & as far as 'guesses'? I don't NEED to guess that you're a moron who is adversely affected by this election's results, lol... your favorite color MUST be 'transparent' as I see RIGHT THRU YOU & "your kind" (so did the USA)).

Oh, & IF it's "so what" I easily negate your bogus unjustifiable downmods & outthink you, then WHY DO YOU REPLY? I know why, lol... so does anyone else. Forums sliding 'burial tactics' anyone??

APK

P.S.=> If anyone has a bump on their head, it's you (more like cranial trauma & a subdural hematoma + intercranial hemoraghing on your end w/ your delusiosn of grandeur attempting to play "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.' which is OLD, stale & unoriginal (but, that's you & "your kind" - get one thing straight - this election SHOWS your weak "jedi mind tricks" do NOT work))... apk

Re:"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat"... apk

[__aaclcg7560]

* Wasting your own time is your business - it's inefficient & wasteful, mine isn't....

Slashdot exist to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for a script to finish at work. I also love trolling the trolls on Slashdot. Thank you for participation!

You've admitted you're a troll, lol... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & thanks for your "illogic logic" + "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" & PROVE ME WRONG https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53420909/

* YOU & "your kind" (sycophants + cronies of the present bad results regime almost ALL THE WAY AROUND for everyone but themselves) are chumps that are easily out-thought, every single time (& outplayed easily).

How's that welfare tit treating you? No 'debt forgiveness' student bribes stuff too?? LMAO... BOTH = equally easily seen thru failed tactics @ seizing votes via "seizing a stupid youth" & other disgruntled morons (blm soros funded & yet they SHOOT EACH OTHER in droves & commit most violent crime?).

Speaking of amusement - I always find it amusing crushing wannabes & pseudo intellectuals like you via easily verified facts you cannot validly overcome.

APK

P.S.=> You lose/fail (like "your kind" did this election, lol) & again - this election proves your puny weak "jedi mind tricks" don't work (lol, neither does your IMF monies)...apk

Re:You've admitted you're a troll, lol... apk

[__aaclcg7560]

Speaking of amusement - I always find it amusing crushing wannabes & pseudo intellectuals like you via easily verified facts you cannot validly overcome.

You're still here? How tiresome. Go play in the street.

No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[unixisc]

I'm assuming that you'd buy a bridge in Boston, provided the salesperson was a Leftist of some hue

Re:No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[serviscope_minor]

Right so someone asking for money to do something and telling what they'll do with the excess is a scam because...?

A scam involves deception. There is no deception here.

Ooooh I see why you're calling it a scam! Trump called it a scam and so you're copying: monkey see monkey do just like a good little trumpanzee.

Re:No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[unixisc]

She wants money to do a recount. Which is fine, if the recount is gonna change the results: they concede that it won't. Besides that, if there is cash left over after the recount is done, she ought to return it to the donors. She won't, but she can't tell people that she'll pocket it for the Green Party, so she creates this bs tale of 'election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.' Why will election officials anywhere - Republican OR Democrat - do those things her way, rather than whatever way works for them?

Re:No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[serviscope_minor]

Besides that, if there is cash left over after the recount is done, she ought to return it to the donors.

Nope. Not if she said up front what she'd do with it. Which uh... she did! There's no deception. And it's not a scam simply because she isn't meeting some arbitrary criteria that you insist she must meet, but the donors seem quite happy for her not to meet.

Just more monkey see monkey do from a Trumpanzee.

ooo ooo eee ooo

Re:No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[Anonymous Coward]

>she can't tell people that she'll pocket it for the Green Party, so she creates this bs tale of 'election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.'

Actually she really won't pocket it for the Green Party because many member of the Green Party have disavowed Stein:
http://www.flowersforsenate.org/greens_speak_out_recount

We write to reaffirm our commitment to building a Green Party that has a radical analysis of the society in which we live, and promotes bold solutions to transform our society and address the root causes of those crises; a Green Party that is independent of the two money-dominated parties.

There is a deep social crisis in the US. This crisis manifests in countless ways. One of its central manifestations is through the political system. People have legitimate concerns about the electoral system, which is manipulated through wholesale voter disenfranchisement, massive voter suppression and the racist and undemocratic historical logic of the Electoral College. In all fifty states, voters from poor and marginalized communities, especially Black people and other communities of color, have their votes suppressed and are excluded from participation through various practices.

The Green Party cannot build the political power necessary for the transformative changes we need by allying with two capitalist parties that serve the interests of the wealthy. That is why it is imperative that the Green Party is independent of those parties. We stay independent to give people an alternative to the corruption of two money-based parties. Greens reject donations from corporations and their political action committees to ensure we are accountable to the people and so that the people’s agenda is not superseded by the corporate agenda.

There are significant electoral reforms needed to make elections more democratic and more representative of the people. While we support electoral reforms, including how the vote is counted, we do not support the current recount being undertaken by Jill Stein.

The decision to pursue a recount was not made in a democratic or a strategic way, nor did it respect the established decision making processes and structures of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS). The recount has created confusion about the relationship between the Green and Democratic parties because the states chosen for the recount are only states in which Hillary Clinton lost. There were close races in other states such as New Hampshire and Minnesota where Clinton won, but which were not part of the recount. And this recount does not address the disenfranchisement of voters; it recounts votes that were already counted rather than restoring the suffrage of voters who were prevented from voting.

As a candidate, Dr. Stein has the right to call for a recount. However, we urge the GPUS to distance itself from any appearance of support for either Democrats or Republicans. We are well aware of the undemocratic actions taken during the primaries by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Greens cannot be perceived to be allied with such a party.

We remain committed to the Green Party’s four pillars and ten key values, which have at their foundation grassroots democracy. We urge the GPUS to prioritize its efforts on building our party from the bottom up, working and organizing in direct solidarity with our state and local parties and alongside and in defense of the rights of those most affected by the injustices of a capitalist, white supremacist and undemocratic system. This includes support for local efforts to prevent the disenfranchisement of people of color via voter suppression or because of felony convictions and to be more inclusive and participatory in our decision-making processes and work.

Long list of Green Party members follows...

I have a feeling Stein won't even be able to run as a Green Party candidate for dogcatcher after this mess.

Re:No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[david_thornley]

The donation page was very straightforward about what the donations were to be used for. She explained why she was going to run recounts in as many of those three states as she could, and what would be done with the leftover money. She should do exactly what she said she'd do with the money, and that is push for recounts and use the rest to push for clean elections rather than return it. Anything else would be a breach of faith with her contributors.

Possible uses for the money are to file lawsuits asking for certain practices to be started or stopped, running informational campaigns, and possibly even helping counties replace voting machines that do not keep a paper trail.

Re:No greenbacks for the Greenies?

[david_thornley]

The three states that Stein picked for recounts have statistical disparities that appear to depend on the type of voting machine in use She wanted those investigated. Minnesota does not use machines that don't leave a paper trail. (I don't know about New Hampshire.)

Stein claimed (I haven't verified) that Michigan was still in doubt when she announced her intention to seek recounts there.

I call your attention ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to the curious behaviour of Wikileaks in the post-election world. They've gone silent. They hit the DNC, they hit John Podesta but Steve Bannon, Corey Lewandowski, Kellyanne Conway have maintained 100% airtight email security. Do you really believe that?

Jill Stein is running a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Jill Stein raised $7 million. $3.5 million went to Wisconsin recount, check.
PA asked for a $1 million bond deposit to hear her case, she said they don't have it.
Bullshit!
Now Jill is going to sue PA in federal court (remember elections are state run, not federally) because the state of PA looks like it will reject her arguments.
Bullshit x2!
Jill says she is recounting the 3 closest states. NH is closer than PA, but Clinton won NH and there is no reason to recount it.
Bullshit x3!

Jill Stein is running a scam, period.

The sink not the source is the problem

[lfp98]

The key to the success and of fake news and the main determinant of its content is not its sources but its consumers. What social media companies have discovered is that giving people whatever news they personally want to hear, regardless of its accuracy, can be a highly lucrative business. Just set up the algorithms, watch the news sources arise like magic, see the subscribers rack up clicks, and let the ad revenue roll in.

Re:The sink not the source is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is it. It's intellectual/political arbitrage. The people running it are literally kids in Veles, Macedonia. Even they're surprised. We talked to one who made 3000EUR/month, which is not bad for the location. Pro-Trump or anti-Hillary articles consistently outperformed even their wildest expectations. They eventually got lazy and started using real names and not even bothering to mask WHOIS info. The American education system is the problem.

Posted anon for obvious reasons.

The report was all FUD, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Respectable, sane, independent journalists that don't toe the line of the USA's owners will now be put on a list, combined with sources that regularly report on aliens, the return of Jesus and lizard people. It's just another battle in the USA's ongoing propaganda wars.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[Anonymous Coward]

How will you use surplus funds?
If we raise more than what's needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.

That's it? Seems to be rather ambiguous and light on the details. Of course, maybe it would have been more effective to work on these goals BEFORE the election and not after.

You're confused

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you mean The Right will support a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?"

No, she can do what she wants to HER body, but killing another human being (her baby) is an entirely different matter. Incidentally: the right ALSO opposes an y father murdering his kids too.

"Or my right to consume mind-altering substances?"

Actually, most on the right would be fine with you using your drugs IN PRIVATE, as long as you do NOT endanger any other person AND you do not render yourself incapable of supporting yourself and then start demanding government checks (OTHER PEOPLE's HARD-EARNED MONEY, TAKEN BY FORCE)

"Does it protect the rights of individuals to worship their own god (or worship none at all)..."

Sure. The right in America DEMANDS this, and that generally also includes the idea that government cannot force you to support somebody ele's perversion of the thousands-of-years-old definition of "marriage"

"...by not placing icons of particular religions on federal buildings or force students to acknowledge a particular deity or by plastering worship of a particular deity on our currency?"

Sorry, but government acknowledgement of the religious beliefs of the majority and historical/cultural associations does not in any way force you to worship some particular entity nor does it prohibit you from having your own beliefs. You are free to worship, or not, and only an SJW snowflake thinks that having the national motto ion the currency is "oppression"

"Do they protect the right of two adults of the same sex to enter into a marriage contract with one another?"

Every right winger I know is perfectly fine with two gay people having a contractual relationship with each other - but it's another thing entirely to have government demand that people abandon their Judeo-Chrisitan religious beliefs and accept the re-definition of the word "marriage" and the inversion of 2K+ years of morality that converts an "abomination" into a "blessing". You pretend you do not want government pushing somebody else's religious beliefs down your throat, but then you assert exactly such an act as a good thing. If government has the right to force Christians or Jews to accept "gay marriage" then it has the fully-legitimate right to force you to be a Christian and even to force gays into gay-to-straight conversion therapy....it's just at that point a matter of who is in power and what they choose to force. That idea that people have the freedom to believe as they will either goes both ways or it does not - and in the Obama era we turned a corner and started asserting that it does not as government sued nuns to force them to fund abortions, which they are unlikely to ever do, and sued Christians to force them to accept the re-definition of marriage, which they cannot do.

Matt Taibi

[superwiz]

Anyone following Matt Taibi's career can clearly tell you that he is a Russian-trained spy. He may have been born in the US, but he was clearly recruited during his 10-year sting as a reporter for an English-language newspaper in Moscow. His argument style is most reminiscent of the old-Soviet propaganda. And he consistently sides with Russia and blames the US in any conflict between the two countries. I, personally, have also seen him use a direct translation of the Russian phrase "neither fish nor meat" instead of the English idiom "neither fish not fowl". Which is entirely unexpected from a professional English-language writer. The only explanation I have for his whole persona is massive training received based on literature used to directly train Russian spies in English or directly in Russian.

Take your own poor advice admitted troll

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: You're clearly an unintelligent EASILY outwitted admitted troll (no creativity creimer you admitted troll)... lol!

* Worst part? I had to deal w/ your TIRED worn-out b.s. (no originality, but then, I expect too much from imbeciles like yourself).

APK

P.S.=> Go away now, 'shoo'... apk

Re:Take your own poor advice admitted troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, look APK is having his delusions of winning again, how does it feel to be the residenrt oke dumbass? all your posts just make you look more foolish and stupid, I blame a bad upbringing, and inbreeding for your obvious insanity, congratualtions on becoming a figure of amusement, a caricature of the alt right lying cunts.

Re:Take your own poor advice admitted troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk doesn't have to win if you unidentifiable trolls always lose first resorting to unjustified down mods he overrides getting you to blow your modpoints until you run out of them.

Re:Take your own poor advice admitted troll

[__aaclcg7560]

You're clearly an unintelligent EASILY outwitted admitted troll (no creativity creimer you admitted troll)... lol!

I post on Slashdot for fun. Beyond that I don't give a shit.

Re:Take your own poor advice admitted troll

[penandpaper]

I post on Slashdot for fun. Beyond that I don't give a shit.

That's just what the government wants you to think, man.

Re:Take your own poor advice admitted troll

[__aaclcg7560]

That's just what the government wants you to think, man.

I work for the government. I'm here to help. :P

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lunatic fuckwads like you have negative credibility you brainless malware pedalling shit.

the resident insane troll APK.

[Anonymous Coward]

You get downmods because everyone here knows you are a stupid insane troll.
Too gutless to login because you know you would be posting at -1 very quickly.
Your delusion of winning is rather amusing, when everything you post is downmodded, you have never won one argument, other than the ones between the voices in your head.
Time for another incoherent ranting post with random bolding!

Re:the resident insane troll APK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Login then hypocrite instead of posting unidentifiably as you do under a delusion you're a psychiatric pro when you're not? Apk doesn't have to win when you lose first using your illogical ad hominem attacks and misused moderation points he gets you to run dry of hahahahaha.

Propaganda about propaganda about propaganda...

[Anonymous Coward]

Use your brain and do not believe anything you read. Double check and confirm. There is more noise than data in the word

Re:butt hurt: the resident insane troll APK.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never get to downmod APK, others get there first, being the most hated troll here makes you happy eh?
Its fun trolling you, you always go off on another deleusional rant full of bolded bits and incoherence.
Wasting your time is a pulic duty, and well worth it to see you stamp your little feet and run around in circles.

False equivalence

[Xylantiel]

A few reporters getting duped is NOT the same as intentionally and repeatedly manufacturing fake news. This is actually a strategy of the fake news pushers... try to dress something up well enough to get picked up by the more reputable sources. Then declare them irriputable when one of dozens of false-flag operations gets through. But the point is that this story was (a) discredited by other news sources and (b) will be or already has been retracted by the WP and (c) reporters will lose their jobs or be demoted, not promoted like they would at a fake news operation.

Also, I'm sure that Rolling Stone has been scouring the Washington Post for something poorly sourced like this, since it was the Post that eviscerated Rolling Stone for the expose on gang rape on college campuses, which turned out to be fabricated by the victim (though actually in a very convincing way).

The problem isn't fake news, it's a public who can't pay attention longer than one 24-hour news cycle. The real facts are almost never known within 24 hours. If people drew their conclusions after there had been enough time for consideration and cross-checking, fake news would have no power. Just like superpacs would have no power if people would just not believe a word of what someone paid for them to hear, duh.

next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Geek news site slashdot has fake news about fake news about fake news...
more at 11

It is all propaganda

[Zemran]

Is there really a difference between Russian Propaganda and US propaganda? Not really. Change the names and places and they are the same. A lot has changed and now it is the US military is doing more spying and crying. Like when they go to Kaliningrad and cry that the Russian plane buzzed them to chase them out and the same spy ship was crying about the same thing the year before in Sevastopol. The news tells people what they want to hear. That is what sells newspapers. If you were to tell people the truth they would get upset and stop buying the papers. I remember talking to a Russian friend in the 1980s, before the wall came down, and I asked him about the difference between the east and the west and he said that the main difference was that in the east they know it is propaganda.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[Mashiki]

Liar

So she's running a recount in the states where Hillary won by only 3k votes? No? Oh I thought so. She's running a scam you fucking rube.

Just as likely for Fox to include

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian propaganda or anyone else for that matter in its opinion cloaked as news.

Vodka is deadly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Drinking a bottle of vodka kills you, so Russians are enemy!

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[Insanity Defense]

The recount in Pennsylvania is NOT dropped. The State Court case was dropped and REPLACED with a Federal one. So the attempt for a recount is on, just in a higher court.

Yes, we do

[Tom]

Both sides in this information war are using propaganda.

Does Russia spend money to improve its image, including on social media? You can bet they do. Just like every other country in the world. Are there people paid to troll anti-russian comments? I wouldn't be surprised. But the question the article raises is a good question as well: Are there people paid to troll pro-russian comments? I wouldn't be surprised, either. And frankly speaking to me it seems like it, because if you post anything pro-russian or just with a balanced view, you do get shouted down as a Putin-lover or whatever.

Re:Yes, we do

[david_thornley]

I'm fairly sure I've seen pro-Russian shills on Slashdot. I haven't seen as much direct evidence for anti-Russian shills, although it's very plausible.

Different this time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful. That sort of thinking is just like bubble investors who say 'it's different this time because such and such doesn't apply anymore'. The human animal has not changed that much in 100 years, and the broad left and right separations are still a quite valid way to characterise collective political opinion. What is happening though is that the left and right have become more extreme, and part of extremism is a desire to 'bring about your utopia' using a more totalitarian approach. That is what is happening. At the moment it looks like Fascism is winning out, but we must be just as wary of the left rising up and taking us all by surprise. Remember Lenin initially thought his 'vanguard' party was just a way to nudge capitalism towards its inevitable (communist) conclusion.

I'm like..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm like..

- Is a random russian a friendly normal human? Yes.
- Is a random american a friendly normal human? Yes.
- Are their governments doing silly things? Yes.
- Are groups in the countries doing silly things? Yes.
- Do I take any of it seriously? Hahaa..

I meet you guys on the internet all the time. You're like the two crazy friends who without reason can't stand each other. I have a feeling that you have latent homosexual feelings for one another, that makes you act like this.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[serviscope_minor]

She's running a scam you fucking rube.

Are your bollocks ok? I only ask because your pants are clearly on fire.

I bet you can't point to an incident where she's used money in a manner other than what she said she'd use it for. Since you're the resident crazy-bloke here, I expect a bunch of links to irrelevant articles where you demand I dig through a further 3 layers of links to find information you insist exists.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

You are seeing Propaganda about Propaganda about PROPAGANDA!

Rolling Stone as our saviour

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what is more astonishing, that the Washington Post was caught spreading fake news or that we are relying on Rolling Stone to 'out them'. Remember the RS has been caught in one of the most horrible examples of fake news going, e.g. that whole gang rape story. Rather than go out of their way to denounce their story & the reporter, and the people saying 'yeah it was all fake but look at the conversation it started', they took their slap on the wrist & continued.

The reason why 'fake news' is allowed to propagate at all is because journalists as a whole are void of critical thinking skills these days. Allowing continued stories of the 'wage gap', that women somehow are still unequal to men, 'rape culture', etc. etc. and outright promoting a left-wing agenda means they will post seemingly 'reasonably sounding news' that isn't actually all that reasonable. While conspiracy theorist will easily buy-in to 'fake news', the general populace knows when something isn't 'quite right' (e.g. if the 'pay gap' was something 'real' then companies would be hiring women like crazy as they'd be cheaper), and lose faith in the supposed 'news organizations' supposedly responsible for giving us the 'straight dope'. I don't know that this is unique to our times though, from what I can tell the 'news media' has been in bed with one 'side' or the other forever, there's just more of it now.

step up the recursive game

[Anonymous Coward]

Are We Seeing Russian Propaganda about Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

Re:They let the ban on propagandizing citizens exp

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm dense, but isn't it Congress' job to renew laws that have expiry dates?

If they choose to do so. Sometimes letting the law sunset is the better course of action.

Hillary lost Michigan recount &...

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: They lost Michigan recount & GAVE UP ON THE PENNSYLVANIA ONE too http://cnycentral.com/news/nat...

* Only Wisconsin is left & it's not enough popular to overturn the law/voting system!

Not that it could - we are NOT a democracy (the USA was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC so that 51% can't take away the rights of 49%!

The USA's become a oligarchic fascist state that needs separation of CORPORATION & STATE much as Church & State were separated!

Start w/ the BOGUS FEDERAL RESERVE & their debt trap THEN THE IRS which your income taxes are used to pay down that debt, NOT TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE

The reason the electoral college voting system exists IS w/ GOOD REASON or large cities in heavily populated states would determine it all (like Hillary SOROS (Saudi Arabia too) tried w/ wealthy cronies + welfare vote brainless sychophants (& stupid college students expecting MORE "college debt fgiveness" bribes (funny I had to pay MINE OFF myself)))

Lastly:

Someone here doesn't want me stating PURE FACTS which are verifiable as I was down moderated unjustly (as well as trolled & attacked) TWICE both here originally https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53420715/ & LATER even here https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53420909/ (gosh, wonder why? NOT!)

APK

P.S.=> The "NWO" is fucked & they know it - I don't see Hillary isn't telling the SOROS FUNDED "BLM" & many other like groups of disgruntled waste of life morons to STOP THEIR VIOLENT PROTESTS or assaults on Trump supporters (+ she already CONCEDED HER LOSS publicly & yet was backing this failed recount too suddenly)!

Additionally, SOROS funded her (he wants to break the US & calls himself a GOD w/ a messianic complex he admitted) & is one of Hillary's "handlers" along w/ Saudia Arabia & VIOLENT 'wahhabi' ISLAM - Huma Abedin is her puppeteer handler here!

So keep being "soros sore losers" tipping your hand, lol - YOU ALL failed hugely & it makes me happy... apkb

Re:butt hurt: the resident insane troll APK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why down mod verifiable fact apk posted twice https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53420715/ and https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53420909/ ? All of your trolling by unidentifiable anonymous posts to apk complete with your rants and profanities directed apk's way don't change those facts which shows he has probably made you lose your cool before as you have here now since you can't prove him wrong. As far as wasting time you are wasting your own and you did prove 1 thing: You have serious mental issues stalker.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. The usa is a constitutional republic not a democracy. The electoral college is how it works. Trump won.

The USA isn't a democracy... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & falsehood from Jill Stein quoted "If you believe in democracy, if you believe in the credibility of your victory, put down your arms, end your bureaucratic obstruction." FROM https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed...

NO lady - I believe in the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC THE UNITED STATES was founded as & STILL IS!

Dumb bitch is trying to FOOL other dumb undereducated shitheads (like you, obviously)...

* The United States, as I said here https://news.slashdot.org/comm... is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!

(It's done THAT way so that 51% of voters can't take 49% of voters' rights away which CAN HAPPEN IN A PURE DEMOCRACY, it is also WHY we have an electoral college (so that heavy urban center welfare votes & those doing well in current regime gov't. jobs can't do that to lesser populated areas)).

BOTTOM-LINE = What she is up to in a recount, which they have lost 1 already by the way just plain DOES NOT MATTER as electoral college is HOW IT WORKS by law (in a land of "rule of law").

See - & just like Shillary SOROS/Saudi Arabia?

Stein is turning away 1 day, conceding defeat, & THEN reopens it (Hillary too) the next day - what I am seeing is 2 WISHY-WASHY CUNTS trying to pull the wool over undereducated IMBECILES' eyes... worst part is? You're FALLING FOR IT. I am here to educate you with fact vs. that.

ANOTHER FACT - Hillary CONCEDED HER LOSS just like Stein did the night before & has lost 1 recount of 3 in Michigan already - wtf? IF that is not 'wishy-washy' bullshit, I don't KNOW what is!

(& Hillary literally has backers that want to break the USA in SOROS stating it+ Saudi Arabian ties via Huma Abedin & Wahhabi VIOLENT Muslims - again, undeniable FACTS also & I don't see either of the 2 cunts telling those VIOLENT George Soros sponsored BLM fools (that shoot one another & commit most violent crime too) STOPPING or being ASKED TO STOP by either of them - why? They're BOTH SOROS sore losers, clearly)... lol!

APK

P.S.=> You chose a very apt trollname as your insanity (ignorance possibly vs. outright lies) is NOT a good defense vs. facts I extolled now + earlier in my posts (mostly all downmodded, "gosh I wonder why" as truth is NOT a big thing on /. apparently nor are facts (or EDUCATED CORRECTLY INFORMED PEOPLE as you clearly evidence since recounts do NOT matter & you've lost 1 & failed another already))...apk

We paid for Russian Info Op

[laughingskeptic]

The three biggest intel orgs in the world have very different philosophies of how you get the job done. The U.S. likes to go after big coups -- turning a general, etc. The Chinese like ops that require enormous resources and cast a wide net, like trying to compromise every visiting student and helping them with their careers in the hopes that one of them winds up somewhere useful someday. The Russians seek to the control the story and believe that they can shape history and they do this with a massive propaganda arm along with controlling the press, etc. Do not make the assumption that your opponents think the same way you do. A company with a superior product that doesn't understand that its competition has superior marketing can still lose in the marketplace.

The Russians have been probing our responses to social media for years. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and our scientists such as Gilad Lotan have helpfully informed them of how to succeed where this hoax is considered to have been a failure. By the time the 2016 election came around they not only knew how to successfully plant fake news but exactly what its shelf life was and had a good idea how to build up to the current election. My guess is they also made money doing it via "clicks". So the gullible US population funded Russia's information operation against itself. Genius.

Russia was not the only genesis of the fake news. I am sure Brad Parscale understood and drove a lot of this and we know Steve Bannon made money promoting fake news. A key element in fake news though is producing as many supporting cross-links as possible. In my mind the effectiveness of Russia's contribution is the outstanding question, not whether or not it happened. Since many of the documentable origins are fake social media accounts and evaporated shell companies it will be very hard to assess who contributed what to the process. I believe there will be a tendency to over-blame "nefarious" Russia in the aftermath.

no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at this right wing shit lord. Let me clear two things up without calling you a moron, which would have been my first response.

1. The "Russia" screams were exclusively from the Clinton camp, which has nothing to do with actual voters.
2. Besides much more tax payer money being spent on much less useful things than *securing democracy*, *no tax payer money is spent on the recount*. I personally think it should have been, but the recounts are *privately funded*.
Bonus: The american voting system is basically total garbage, with the electronic voting machines not only being vulnerable to manipulation from official side (happened in the democratic primary), but basically by any idiot on the parking lot outside, so questioning the result is more than justified.

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[david_thornley]

Stein said that her campaign would spend the money on recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania if they got enough, and that they'd use the remainder of the contributions towards making elections clean. She promised nothing in the way of results. The donation page was very clear on those things.

Do you have evidence that her campaign is doing anything else with the donated money?

Re:Bah! They lost Michigan recount &...

[hyades1]

Just what we need. Another fact-averse Trump whore commenting on things better left to people with three-figure IQ's.

Admittedly trolling on /. = your "job"?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & your admitting you are a troll (probably hired by George Soros or Hillary Clinton to mislead others) https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53421391/

APK

P.S.=> Some "job", lol... apk

Re:Admittedly trolling on /. = your "job"?

[__aaclcg7560]

See subject & your admitting you are a troll (probably hired by George Soros or Hillary Clinton to mislead others)

Congrats on getting out of jail! The Slashdot community misses you. (Not!)

I haven't been in jail creimer... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Is that LIE the "best ya go" you admitted troll https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53421391/ you projecting you are?

* Again - some "job", lol... paid for undoubtedly by George Soros OR Hillary Clinton!

APK

P.S.=> You're wearing chains of another kind - me? I haven't had to work for ANYONE in a decade++! My money works for me, not the other way around... apk

Re:I haven't been in jail creimer... apk

[__aaclcg7560]

I haven't had to work for ANYONE in a decade++!

You're unemployable and posting from an ObamaPhone? That's tough.

I'm a landlord of multiple properties chump

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: My money works for me (they're paid off in full as is all my belongings - how about you, MENIAL?) - I see you 'brag' on "gov't. work" & you're a MENIAL IT CHUMP (helpdesk, lmao) & nothing more.

* Don't go 'bragging' - you're the LOWEST of the LOW in the art & science of computing!

APK

P.S.=> Chumps like you? You wouldn't be able to FUNCTION @ all minus guys like myself (programmers/software engineers) - hard truth of it IS that, menial... apk

Re:I'm a landlord of multiple properties chump

[__aaclcg7560]

helpdesk, lmao

I do computer security these days.

You wouldn't be able to FUNCTION @ all minus guys like myself (programmers/software engineers)

Because of people like you, there will always be people like me to clean up after your messes. That's job security on my end.

LOL - I was doing THAT before you were born

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Even CIS Tool (highly esteemed) took fixes from me & Malwarebytes' hpHosts HOST & RECOMMEND my security ware + the security community knows me (I interact w/ them almost weekly) - & you?

* Menials like YOU just do NOT get it!

In order to BE a COMPETENT software engineer (especially architecting LARGE systems & I've got ~ 40 to my name since 1994)?

You had to have been a tech, network admin, db admin, webmaster as well as a SECURITY GURU (assuming that you want to be actually GOOD @ your job that is). It means knowing how to secure all types of servers, databases, perimeter defenses (firewalls, routers, restructuring or rescoping networks, etc. - et al) & yes, securing code too.

You can TRY cut me down but you're SO far below me in this field, even in security, it's NOT funny.

AGAIN fact - MINUS CODERS LIKE MYSELF BUILDING TOOLS FOR dolts LIKE YOU TO EVEN FUNCTION YOU'RE zero!

APK

P.S.=> Chump, the DAY you can develop a security ware BETTER than mine yourself (never gonna happen - unskilled MENIALS like you don't have the skills or experience) is the day you can talk (hell, I was paid for doing security guides while you were on helpdesk (that I believe you're into security either)) -> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+WINDOWS+2000%2FXP%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ so don't even *TRY* to "browbeat" me or condescend to me you pitiful MENIAL level techie... apk

Re:LOL - I was doing THAT before you were born

[__aaclcg7560]

You can TRY cut me down but you're SO far below me in this field, even in security, it's NOT funny.

What I'm doing is feeding the troll. What you're doing is pathetic. You claim to be someone important but you spend your time belittling someone on a two-week old Slashdot thread. That's pathetic.

I never said I'm important (you did)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & a lie you told about me https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53509993/ & I told a truth of you /https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53511083/> in return!

* Why? You're a self-admitted troll by your own admission 3x now https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9952559&cid=53421391/ - want the other 2?

APK

P.S.=> ... & you continue trolling off topic + are pathetic projecting what's in my subject line above as you did... apk

Re:I never said I'm important (you did)

[__aaclcg7560]

you continue trolling off topic + are pathetic projecting what's in my subject line above as you did...

I think this thread will close out after 200 comments.