Slashdot Mirror


Is Russia Conducting A Social Media War On America? (time.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Time magazine ran a cover story about "a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces" -- social media. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government, and it's becoming easier every day," says Rand Waltzman of the Rand Corp., who ran a major Pentagon research program to understand the propaganda threats posed by social media technology." The article cites current and former FBI and CIA officials who now believe Russia's phishing emails against politicians were "just the most visible battle in an ongoing information war against global democracy." They cite, for example, a March report by U.S. counterintelligence which found "Russians had sent expertly tailored messages carrying malware to more than 10,000 Twitter users in the Defense Department." Each message contained links tailored to the interests of the recipient, but "When clicked, the links took users to a Russian-controlled server that downloaded a program allowing Moscow's hackers to take control of the victim's phone or computer -- and Twitter account...

"In 2016, Russia had used thousands of covert human agents and robot computer programs to spread disinformation referencing the stolen campaign emails of Hillary Clinton, amplifying their effect. Now counterintelligence officials wondered: What chaos could Moscow unleash with thousands of Twitter handles that spoke in real time with the authority of the armed forces of the United States?" The article also notes how algorithms now can identify hot-button issues and people susceptible to suggestion, so "Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior. That is what Moscow is doing, more than a dozen senior intelligence officials and others investigating Russia's influence operations tell Time."

The article describes a Russian soldier in the Ukraine pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife. Meanwhile, this week Time's cover shows America's White House halfway-covered with Kremlin-esque spires -- drawing a complaint from the humorists at Mad magazine, who say Time copied the cover of Mad's December issue.

469 comments

  1. The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media. How many hyped up bullshit stories is it going to take before news media consumers realize it's 95% storytelling and 5% actual events?

    1. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously people. Stop treating government as a sporting contest where you cheer for your team to crush the other team.

      The government is the police and the military. They arrest and imprison people. They carry out drone strikes and bombings. They ruin people's lives. They take ~25% of everything everyone produces every year.

      It's not a game. It's not a TV show. It's not a comedy. And it's not about you feeling good about yourself -- you're not a storybook hero. It's a grownup thing. Time to start thinking and acting like grownups.

    2. Re:The media is by StevenMaurer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not a war on America. That's what America wants.

      Media outlets live and die by ratings. They've tried appealing to people's logic before. Audiences tune it out.

      Actually, this is a general metaphor for most of the modern world. Big bad "corporations" get blamed for the general preferences and assholishness of the general public. Want to know why all food is such cheap shit? McDs tries to sell salads, but nobody buys. Want to know why all the characters in horror movies are so stupid, and hit TV shows make fun of nerds? Most of the audience is stupider than a bag of rocks.

      And politically -- and this also applies to intelligent people as well -- nobody wants information. All they want is validation. So that's what modern day media provides them. They have to, in this competitive landscape. The days of the big three forcing people to watch southerners brutalizing blacks because there was literally nothing else on TV, is long gone. They'll just switch to FOX, where no one even knows that Trump is in hock up to his eyeballs to Putin-connected billionaires.

    3. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello comrad

    4. Re:The media is by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And politically -- and this also applies to intelligent people as well -- nobody wants information. All they want is validation.

      That's well-said. Good point.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:The media is by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1
      Heh "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources".

      If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media. How many hyped up bullshit stories is it going to take before news media consumers realize it's 95% storytelling and 5% actual events?

      Hrm.

    6. Re:The media is by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      I see it a little differently:

      • 5% actual events from on-site reporters
      • 10% second-tier news services reporting the syndicated details.
      • 25% aggregators like Slashdot repeating "curated" news with editorial additions
      • 50% pundits and commentators discussing the impact of the events and how this proves that their particular perspective is the right one.
      • 5% expert commentary expecting the results of the court case, committee decision, or other normal systematic process.
      • 5% actually following up with the final outcome.

      Everybody thinks they're being helpful in discussing the latest breaking news and giving their opinion. Half of the time, though, it just adds noise.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:The media is by FilatovEV · · Score: 2

      And politically -- and this also applies to intelligent people as well -- nobody wants information. All they want is validation.

      While we are at that, would suggest you having a look at commentaries on Russia affairs by Mark Ames, which are more on the information side I believe.

    8. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It is incredibly ironic that you decided to end your diatribe on morons believing anything that validates their views with a demonstration that you are a moron who will believe anything that validates your views.

      There is not, and has never been, any evidence, large or small, connecting Donald Trump to Russia, or linking Russia to the DNC hacking. At all. Ever. In any capacity.

      It is a complete fabrication perpetrated by a manipulative and tilting news media who bet everything and lost in the last election.

      I voted for Hillary, but I'm not stupid or partisan enough to be duped into thinking anyone other than her is responsible for her loss. Grow the fuck up already.

    9. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Greed. makes 'murika great again. Gotta get those eyeballs onto the ad-ridden stories.

      How best to do that?

      Make up shit. And STILL people view the shit. Ain't it great!

      Governments aren't to blame.

      Media isn't to blame.

      PEOPLE are. For perpetuating the situation.

      The fix? Too horrible for people to contemplate: "Give up internet? ZOMG NO."

    10. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So close. Then you linked to conspiracy bullshit at the end. Congrats on proving your own point about people being shallow and uncritical.

    11. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And politically -- and this also applies to intelligent people as well -- nobody wants information. All they want is validation.

      From the 1970s through the 1990s, public radio (NPR) provided information. But that was when they were supported by government funding. Now that they're primarily supported by donations from listeners and corporate sponsors, they're providing validation instead of information.

    12. Re:The media is by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't really true at all. Two of the highest rated news programs in America are 60 Minutes and NPR's All Things Considered (google it). They even outperform FOX News. The most critically acclaimed entertainment shows are also often the most watched shows.

      The reason crap is crap, is that crap is cheap to make and good things are more expensive to make. The formula for TV is not a singular pursuit of the highest possible ratings (though that is always nice I'm sure), it's a mix of the best ratings possible for the cheapest price possible, maximizing ad revenue.

    13. Re:The media is by Kohath · · Score: 1

      That's what America wants.

      Sounds like something a tobacco company CEO might say. Sure it's poisonous, but they keep buying it, LOL. News media are the moral equivalent of cigarette salesmen.

    14. Re:The media is by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because he's aligned with Russian interests doesn't mean he's Russian.

      I like that the ability of the western media to influence politics with international progressivism is being weakened. The threats that the big bad bear will come invade Europe if we don't stop him now are fucking laughable. He's playing games in his backyard, those games are less relevant to me than the games the west is playing in the ME.

      That he's pushing nativism to weaken the EU, fucking great. I don't want minarets calling for Islamic prayer anywhere near me or even in my country. There's individual Muslims I don't mind, but the culture should have no significant power here. Letting them gather demographic and political power in Europe will lead to disaster far more certainly than Putin trying to incorporate land with Russophones.

      The suppressed truths of the western media are far more dangerous to me and mine than Putin's lies.

    15. Re:The media is by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The problem is that "the media" picks up all kind of "fake news" from social media. If something is trending on Twitter or Facebook, etc., the media will just parrot it... the more sensational, the better. This makes the media uniquely susceptible to these kind of Russian attacks.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    16. Re: The media is by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is not, and has never been, any evidence, large or small, connecting Donald Trump to Russia,

      Shut the fuck up.

      http://time.com/4433880/donald...
      http://www.politico.com/magazi...
      http://www.latimes.com/politic...

    17. Re: The media is by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't use lefty rags as sources when even they say that there is no hard evidence. Only to follow up with STFU. Can you see the irony there?

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    18. Re:The media is by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Excellent analogy. Using.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    19. Re:The media is by DogDude · · Score: 1

      If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media

      Spasibo, tovarishch

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    20. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's all Russia is doing, they're way behind. Facebook, twitter, and others have been doing that to us for years

    21. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously dumbass. You can't vote Putin out and he doesn't like your free ass.

    22. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Stop cheering for your team. Be rational and cheer for my team instead.

    23. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He stated that Trump is connected to Putin's billionaires, if you are capable of reading comprehension which isn't the case it seems.
      Given the fact that Trump is a businessman before a politician, and that a businessman's core purpose in trade and life is to be connected
      to every fucking millionaire and billionaire on this planet irrespective of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, religion, ideology, etc.;
      then his statement is pretty fucking valid and logical and rational.
      If you were a businessman like Trump, would you avoid establishing connections with Russian billionaires just because of the country
      they are from? No. Not unless you want to fail as a businessman and are a god damn idiot, like your post makes you out to be.

    24. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have known people who are members of a cadre political organization, just shut up.

    25. Re: The media is by StevenMaurer · · Score: 0

      You can't use lefty rags as sources when even they say that there is no hard evidence. Only to follow up with STFU. Can you see the irony there?

      The only irony here is your attempt to refute my observation that too many people only want validation, by showing that you reject anything other than what you want to believe, and not even addressing the many referenced sources and facts that were presented to do.

      That so many people are like you pretend that facts presented in mainstream publications are false because of some imaginary bias you impute to them (because they provide facts, rather than validation), is the problem.

      By the way, the etymology behind the word "rags" is that kook-conspiracy-theorists (both kook left and kook right) back in the day didn't have the money to pay for decent publication values, and so hard to print their stuff on cheap paper that quickly became yellowed and ragged. These days, thanks to the internet, people posting unsourced drivel and made-up bullshit "news," have the ability to make things look much more presentable at least in terms of formatting, so it isn't as obvious which is a multiply sourced story with Pulitzer winning investigative reporters, and which is some kook typing out blue lies in his basement. In short, whatever you think to yourself isn't biased would have been, 40 years ago, a literal "rag".

      This is really a story about how increased competition and choice in the marketplace has made the overall product (in this case - news) worse, not better. That is very atypical for free trade.

    26. Re:The media is by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While we are at that, would suggest you having a look at commentaries on Russia affairs by Mark Ames, which are more on the information side I believe.

      Thank you for that source. I read it, and it provides some very interesting facts about the murky nature of the FBI, and how that organization has been used for, what I will characterize as, political malfeasance. However, I don't agree with the author's belief that "The FBI isn't even legal". I'm pretty sure if it were, the courts, Congress, and the President would have taken note of it by now.

      To clarify my comments above, let me state the following:

      • Trump is irrefutably up to his eyeballs in debt to Putin connected billionaires.
      • This may be embarrassing but is by no means illegal.
      • The only question is the emoluments clause of the Constitution and the suddenly discovered issue of how it is to be enforced, and by whom. The Supreme Court? Congress? And what is the standard applied? Would a future president who had a credit card drawn on a non-American bank qualify?
      • These sorts of issues are never even discussed dispassionately, because people just want the media to tell them how good they are compared to other Americans.
      • The worse aspect of this is the ability for "validation news" to simply pretend that large scale known facts don't exist. This means you don't even have to talk around or justify facts that don't support your world view. You can just live in a media ecosystem in which they don't exist.
      • While this isn't new, technology has made this tendency dramatically worse. If you won't pander to someone who is looking for fake news, someone else will. There is no more news. Only "infortainment". Edward R. Murrow must be rolling over in his grave.
    27. Re:The media is by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media.

      So, ignore the facts of Russian influence on the election, especially if you were one of the pinko patsies slurping down the Russian disinformation campaign. The only way Trump supporters can avoid admitting they were tools of Moscow is to deny it ever happened. Part of that is attacking the media reporting the story.

      That either makes you a dupe or Russian soldier killing some spare time. Not much of a choice.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    28. Re:The media is by murdocj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's obvious that Russia (or some country, but let's assume Russia) is conducting such a campaign. Just look at the post of Fox News, for example. You'll run into posts that sound like they were supposed to be written by an American, but have phrases that no American would ever write. It's pretty clear sometimes that you are dealing with someone who didn't get the top grade in the Russian info-war school.

    29. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      da comrade

    30. Re: The media is by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now you're an expert on me? Typical... when someone challenges your narrative, you resort to personal attacks. Haha! Triggered much?

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    31. Re: The media is by ilguido · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only irony here is your attempt to refute my observation that too many people only want validation, by showing that you reject anything other than what you want to believe, and not even addressing the many referenced sources and facts that were presented to do.

      When someone reports pseudo-facts, factoids and fake news as hard evidence, people tend to believe there's something fishy going on. I clicked on the first link (TIME magazine) and the article literally starts with: "Russian intelligence agencies have allegedly recently digitally broken into four different American organizations that are affiliated either with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party since late May". This is a factoid; there is no real reason to not think that the Democratic Party hack is 90% due to the internal grievances with the party misconduct toward Sanders: some intern dumped the data and then shared it to expose such petty behaviour. The whole Russian hack thing smells like a really smelly red herring.

      I think that in the end you just proved your point: people want validation, you too.

    32. Re:The media is by FilatovEV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thank you for that source.

      You are welcome. Meanwhile, have you noticed that it's just the latest article in a series of (currently) six? There are links to other articles at the bottom of the page, some of which are more in line with the series name ("Russia blog").

      While it's an interesting piece about the FBI, the major strength of Mark Ames as a journalist comes from the fact that he ran a newspaper in Russia in 1990s. In 2000s they got some issue with the Russian Government and preferred to shut down (or as Mark Ames puts it, his newspaper was closed). Nevertheless, he knows a great deal about 1990s Russia, and that's a great context most U.S. journalists just don't get. That's why Ames is unique, more or less.

      That being the sole consideration, his writing would be just another opinion. But since he knows a vast amount of facts about Russia's most recent history, he is able to make a damn good point.

    33. Re: The media is by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Insightful

      YOU stfu. The entire hysteria over Trump and Russia rests on the notion that Russia "hacked our election" and Trump was colluding with Putin to do so. But there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up, making this the most pathetic deranged partisan dumbfuckery since the Birthers kept insisting Obama was born in Kenya after his long-form birth certificate was released.

      And pathetically hypocritical as well, as it wasn't Trump who sold 20% of America's uranium to Russia after his foundation took donations from Russia.

    34. Re:The media is by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I called out a Chinese paid poster on CNN years ago. While their english was good and their posts were well constructed, there were a few subtleties that clued me in that this was not "Robert from Iowa" claiming the Japanese are the territorial aggressors. My wife is Japanese and her english is also good, however english is a tricky fucking language because our structure differs from pretty much every other modern language. Being use to her speaking/writing made it very clear to me the person was Asian.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    35. Re:The media is by qaz123 · · Score: 1

      Are there only 2 countries in the world? Russia and America?

    36. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoyed your infotainment, and would like to subscribe to your monthly news letter.

    37. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that, Mark Ames is clearly another source of excellent infotainment.

    38. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " But there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up " - Yes, there is. It's also classified.

    39. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With an account name like yours you should still be ranting about "we wuz cheated in 2000!!!"

      Probably, you dug this particular sock puppet out of mothballs special cuz yer gurl lost again.

    40. Re:The media is by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      25% ????

      Guess again and this time go higher.

    41. Re:The media is by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I could not agree more. If you, for example, vote for a party that promised to do a real war and then they do it as result of being elected, you very much share the responsibility for the killing that ensues, just the same as if you had done it personally.

      As to the matter at hand, a "war" is were people a lot of people get killed without actually deserving it individually. A war is not something you can overlook or misunderstand. If you are in a war, you _will_ know. That is another grown-up thing: Do not use very serious terms like "war", "terrorism", etc. for things that are something else.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His long form birth certificate that they released as a PDF file but forgot to flatten the layers? That used African American as race? Sure

    43. Re: The media is by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      More importantly, the DNC hack is entirely irrelevant. It's a side show to distract Democrats from the fact that they aren't as popular as they think they are, they aren't as competent as they think they are, and they pushed a really bad candidate on everyone.

      They've cocooned themselves in a reality distortion bubble where the 90s never happened.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      Other than Faux, for instance, the Media got it right.
      Iraq
      NO WMD and no excuses for claiming there were any
      Emails
      No crime
      Benghazi
      Purest bullsh!t
      etc..
      Thus, the "fake news" is alt-right "news" like the Swedish gang rape and German New Years Riot
      Pure lies of the right.

    45. Re: The media is by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's a side show to distract Democrats from the fact that they aren't as popular as they think they are, they aren't as competent as they think they are

      They are, but the Republicans are much better at gerrymandering. See, for example, NC.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    46. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No, you are just embarrassed by your hypocrisy.

    47. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      As the NSA demonstrated, the attacks came from Russian State Sources

    48. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Lie.
      By 2.89 million MORE votes!

    49. Re: The media is by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except for the problem of Congress actually investigating that. Now you may be right in the end, but since neither you or I are in a position to make the judgment, what you're really doing is making an unevidenced declaration. Nixon's supporters, like Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush did much the same thing as Watergate began to simmer, and in the end, despite claims by the Administration and its cheerleaders, even Republicans came to recognize that Nixon had indeed committed impeachable offenses.

      So maybe it's all fabrication, though if it is, you're talking about a vast web of conspiracy involving a whole lot of actors, some of which are pretty much political opponents. But if it makes you feel better, then all the power to you. But keep in mind, the only thing right now keeping Trump in the White House is the GOP's general fear that removing him would do them political damage, and the fact that, innocent or guilty, the man seems incapable of opening his mouth without somehow sounding like he's indicting himself, eventually that will chip away at the base, just as Nixon's failings begin to erode the base. So while I'm sure you will remain a true believer, and refuse to accept anything that Congress or the three letter agencies say, and will doubtless hold the torch for Donald Trump until you expire your last breath, it's not you who is going to be making that decision, it's Republican lawmakers, based on whether or not Trump's failings, real and imagined, threaten to do political damage to the party.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    50. Re: The media is by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      "High Rag Content" means that paper is of a high quality. US Currency, for example, is mostly cotton.

    51. Re: The media is by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      As random slashdot poster commented, without attribution...

    52. Re: The media is by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apples and Oranges. And potatoes for tha matter.

      The only vote that the Constitution allows is the Electoral Vote.

      Anything else is journalists running around tallying up numbers. They might as well be tallying up the weight of the jewelry that the people voting for each candidate were wearing when they voted.

    53. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes as a percent of GDP are about 25%.

      Higher numbers aren't more persuasive. Even if it were half as high, it still wouldn't be a game. People spend their lives working for the money that gets taken from them.

    54. Re: The media is by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      The entire hysteria over Trump and Russia rests on the notion that Russia "hacked our election" and Trump was colluding with Putin to do so

      You completely choose to ignore the multitude of ways in which many people close to Trump have intimate connections with the Kremlin. I'm not sure why anyone would adapt this cognitive dissonance.

    55. Re:The media is by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      'Emails, No Crime' may prove to be an interesting circus. Remember, the new special investigator just set up doesn't have a very limited scope. There is still plenty of room to continue investigating.

      I, for one, look forward to a vigorous investigation of 'manipulation' in the election. Because the long tails revealed don't necessarily point toward Trump's campaign exclusively.

      We have all sorts of matters and evidence to look into. For instance, media people who leaked the Debate Questions to the Clinton campaign before the election. And the FBI director going totally beyond his tradition role in declaring 'We will not be prosecuting Hillary.' It isn't even the FBI's role to prosecute.

      Interesting times ahead, and the losers could lose even more in the 2016 election.

    56. Re: The media is by ABEND · · Score: 2

      Please contrast and compare Hillary Clinton's and her associates' "intimate connections" with the Russian government and the Kremlin with those of Trumps' and his associates'. Unless, of course, you completely choose to ignore any connection between Democrat Party members and Russia.

      --
      In all seriousness:
    57. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't really true at all.

      This is definitely true to a degree. People now seek news that supports the feelings inside their heads. It's not about facts anymore. This is going to be a problem. Could be a real big problem.

      Feelings trump facts in our modern society. Good times.

    58. Re: The media is by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You know as well as everyone else that attacks can and have been spoofed.

      Do you REALLY think that if the Russian Government was going to do something so in your face as what you suggest that they'd just jump on Planeta.ru and go to it?

      Sophistry.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    59. Re: The media is by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "He's playing games in his backyard"
      "Putin trying to incorporate land with Russophones."

      The usual English phrase for that is "invading other countries".

    60. Re:The media is by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "They take ~25%"

      Hahahahahahaha

    61. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Stop cheering for your team. Be rational and cheer for my team to start a thermonuclear war with Russia because some of our pencilheads think we can win it.

    62. Re: The media is by vell0cet · · Score: 1

      I've started ranking my news sources by number of corrections/retractions. Untrustworthy sources tend to never to admit mistakes.

    63. Re:The media is by hey! · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your perspective, Ivan.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    64. Re:The media is by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Our government is already using the media to influence voters, in both their countries and ours. What Russia is doing to influence our voters could be considered Self Defense. If we devise a defense against this it would also block our governments propaganda against us.

    65. Re: The media is by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Really? What are you referring to?

      Maybe some stuff Trump said?

    66. Re: The media is by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      That's a fantastic argument. Because shut up, that's why!

    67. Re: The media is by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      What would you say to people who continuously insist that there is no evidence the world is a sphere that is floating in space?
      I'm fucking sick of this denial attitude, mainly from conservatives, on all the bullshit that is the Trump presidency and the sorry state that the Republican party has degenerated to.

    68. Re: The media is by grcumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is not, and has never been, any evidence, large or small, connecting Donald Trump to Russia, or linking Russia to the DNC hacking. At all. Ever. In any capacity.

      Never, ever get on the wrong side of the argument with Bruce Schneier. At all. Ever. In any capacity.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    69. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence does not mean what you think it means.

      Anonymous sources. Described documents. Something someone said to someone else... None of these are evidence, you fucking imbecile... It's lies, fake news, propaganda, and manipulation.

    70. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an expert shill. Extra shekels will be deposited into your account next week, Steinberg.

    71. Re: The media is by Gussington · · Score: 1

      You can't use lefty rags as sources when even they say that there is no hard evidence.

      I'm not American, nor do I follow your press which you consider "lefty", but when House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy thinks Trump is being paid by Putin I think it is worthy of further scrutiny...

    72. Re: The media is by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The entire hysteria over Trump and Russia rests on the notion that Russia "hacked our election" and Trump was colluding with Putin to do so.

      No, there's a lot more to it than that, and I suggest you do more reading.
      If you look at what Russia did in the Ukraine before they invaded it, you will see some comparisons with what is happening in the US. Now you might not care about that type of thing, but for the people charged with keeping the country secure, they need to step up and ask the tough questions.

    73. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you the same.

      You refuse to acknowledge any failures in your own party, take no responsibility for the losses, and ignore completely the contents of the hacked emails which clearly exposed corruption, malfeasance, and generally disgusting (albeit typical) behavior from your team.

      Hillary is just as disgusting as Trump, but at least he doesn't hide it behind a vulgar facade, and he is genuinely trying to keep most of his promises, even if misguided. She would have laughed all the way to the Whitehouse, giving the finger to everyone on the way there behind tinted limousine windows.

    74. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not using the word "fact" correctly.

      You don't have any which support your spurious claims, because they do not exist. If they did, we would not be having this discussion.

    75. Re: The media is by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

      Talking to Russians is a crime in the USSA?
      `Proof` is a variable in the USSA: Hillary is not indicted but Trump has an attempt at impeachment going on.
      USSA is an empire in decline.
      Delusional stuff comes with these changes..
      The president is just a puppet for the military industrial complex, big pharma, the banks, etc.
      The (fiat) money has brought this upon the people.

    76. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia, too.

    77. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU stfu. The entire hysteria over Trump and Russia rests on the notion that Russia "hacked our election" and Trump was colluding with Putin to do so.

      No. It doesn't rest on that notion at all.

      You should leave FOX and read up on what has happened the last three months.

    78. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are for all we know a paid shill/advocate that sprays left propaganda sewerage over sites. Get your heresay and paid for propaganda away from here. Oh, and STFU.

    79. Re: The media is by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      I agree that "were" people don't deserve their predicament, but what are you going to do when the full moon comes out again?

      (Sorry, too much dwarf fortress)

    80. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is irrefutably up to his eyeballs in debt to Putin connected billionaires.

      This may be embarrassing but is by no means illegal.

      No he's not. Just another conspiracy theory from the people who brought you "Obama's a Kenyan" and "L33t Russian Haxx0rs stole the election."

      Meanwhile, we'll say it loud and proud: His name was Seth Rich.

    81. Re: The media is by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      This is a factoid; there is no real reason to not think that the Democratic Party hack is 90% due to the internal grievances with the party misconduct toward Sanders: some intern dumped the data and then shared it to expose such petty behaviour.

      His name was Seth Rich.

    82. Re: The media is by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      You know as well as everyone else that attacks can and have been spoofed.

      Do you REALLY think that if the Russian Government was going to do something so in your face as what you suggest that they'd just jump on Planeta.ru and go to it?

      Sophistry.

      Desperation. They'd rather incite a war with a nuclear power than admit that Hillary Clinton wasn't electable, something everyone and their mother tried to tell them a year ago.

    83. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except we know it wasn't hacked by the Russians. It was leaked by Seth Rich, and then he ended up shot in the back twice for his trouble.

    84. Re: The media is by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The only reality there, the Clinton Crime Crew trying to fend off prosecution by targeting Trump with ohh look laughable connections straight out of the Fox New Network propaganda style. American news media is so tainted as to be worthless, you might as well be linking to childrens comics.

      All this article points to is the growing Mcarthyism being pursued by the establishment, oppose them and you are a Russian spy, all so boring pathetically apparent. They will continue to run Russia baiting so they can target anyone at any level in main stream media as colluding with Russia, the lies are all so lame.

      Readying for the Democrat primaries, establishment the religious patriots and the champions of 'er' the corporations and those that oppose them agents of Russia, owned by Russian oligarchs. So laughably lame.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    85. Re:The media is by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I will point out that in citing a blog full of "might have" and "could have" but not a single hard fact, both you and your source have performed identically to the recent incarnations of the nightly mainstream news.

      Credibility has been reduced to the point where as soon as I see such speculatory phrasings, I know that the media is Making Shit Up again, geared not to informing, but rather to leading public opinion down the desired garden path.

      One "could be" led to consider what we're being misdirected away from...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    86. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times are bogus numbers like 95% used to lend an air of statistical credibility to an otherwise empty statement? Almost as bad as a Russian plebiscite...

    87. Re:The media is by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      More like 45% when you add it all up, and also include all the explicit and implicit taxes. Implicit taxes like monetary inflation and increased debt.

      If government makes you do things -- accounting, for instance -- or build things -- ramps or light-bulb alternatives, for example -- no taxes are collected and the government itself doesn't spend the money. But it's still a cost when people are forced to do it. None of that's in that 45%.

      So that 45% estimate is low.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    88. Re: The media is by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Or they call it self determination, or immigration, or asylum, completely depends on context and who's talking.

      Regardless, we have our own invasion we aren't allowed to talk about to worry about ... when Putin tries to push that invasion to the foreground to get his one to the background, more power to him.

    89. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Estonia is part of Europe... for now. Give it two years.

    90. Re:The media is by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

      Sooooooo, who is going to tell this to Trump?

    91. Re: The media is by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No. It doesn't rest on that notion at all.

      Uh, yeah, it does. You wouldn't see the media freaking the fuck out if it suddenly came out that Trumps team talked to.....an ambassador from New Zealand. A state official from Poland.

      You should leave FOX

      I'm a leftist, dumbass. You should leave CNN/MSNBC/NYT/Wapo.

      read up on what has happened the last three months

      You mean the increasing hysterical conspiracy theories. Democrats are finally getting even with Republicans for all that bullshit about Vince Foster in the 90's, and Obama's birth certificate after 2008, by engaging in straight-up McCarthyism.

    92. Re: The media is by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      "As the NSA demonstrated, the attacks came from Russian State Sources"

      Who in their right mind would believe anything the NSA says?

      In fact, if there are Russian fingerprints around, and we know that the NSA and CIA are in the business of creating false tracks to cover up their activity, if anything we should suspect that NSA is politically compromised, or that it was someone in US intel. that did it.

      This is in fact the exact scenario that 90% of Slashdot has been wailing about for years! Yet, if the target is one the left hates, suddenly we become NSA fanboys.

      Pathetic.

    93. Re: The media is by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No, there's a lot more to it than that

      Nope, just more hysterical partisan bullshit.

      and I suggest you do more reading

      I suggest you try and find an old copy of the Clinton Chronicles on VHS, where Republicans accused the Clintons of everything from having Arkansas state police run drugs to having people murdered. Actually, you can skip the VHS since it popped up on Youtube in the same Google search - and you can see those deranged Birchers using the exact same "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument Democrats are aiming at Trump right now.

      If you look at what Russia did in the Ukraine before they invaded it,

      You mean gave Ukraine a cheap gas deal and a low interest loan free of any of the IMF's austerity-crushing provisions? And Russia hasn't invaded shit. Years of accusations pulled from Right Sector Ukrainian accounts, but not a single satellite photo showing Russian troops. This subject is a lose-lose for western exceptionalists, because even if Russia did invade Ukraine, it would be a million times more justified as the U.S. overthrew the Ukrainian government. It's not like the U.S. would sit by with its thumb up its ass, if the USSR overthrew the government of Canada after Russia extended the Warsaw Pact around U.S. borders.

      but for the people charged with keeping the country secure, they need to step up and ask the tough questions

      Wow. Was that said in your best Charlie Sheen "winning!" voice? No, what's happening now is that there is no evidence to support Russian hacking and there never was. Which would mean that the media and almost all of the Democratic party were going to have to admit they were hysterical McCarthyist shitbags.

      Well, we couldn't have that, now could we? So now they're trying to find nefarious connections and whining when people start taking the 5th in response to a witch hunt. It's a direct mirror of what Republicans did in the 90's - spend a hundred million dollars investigating the Clintons on everything from Whitewater to drug running to murdering Vince Foster. It all turned to bullshit in their hands, so rather than admit to being asshole witch hunters, they settled on a manufactured sexual perjury charge. Which Clinton wasn't even guilty of using the court's definition of "sexual relations."

      That's what Democrats are doing. Finally getting some revenge on a Republican president for all the nonsense they went through 20 years ago. Except they became what they hated in the process.

    94. Re:The media is by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      "Emails ... No crime"

      People who argue for this are directly responsible for the breakdown of the rule of law that, among other horrors, is leading to countless blacks and other people getting gunned down by police unnecessarily, with rarely any repercussions.

      Almost nothing offends me. But when you work in a place where you know without a doubt that you would be hauled off to prison for pulling even 1% of the stunt that Clinton got away with, because you are told this fact day in and day out by actual intelligence agents and legal professionals, you have seen the convictions occur of ordinary "peons" who simply possessed classified outside of proper controls, etc., well you make me sick.

    95. Re:The media is by algoa456 · · Score: 0

      If anyone is conducting a (metaphorical) war on America, it's the news media. How many hyped up bullshit stories is it going to take before news media consumers realize it's 95% storytelling and 5% actual events?

      Clearly /. needs a 'Thumbs-Up' button. 10,000 thumbs-up for the remark.

    96. Re: The media is by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You completely choose to ignore the multitude of ways in which many people close to Trump have intimate connections with the Kremlin.

      A narrative which is completely dependent on Russia being an nefarious actor. Like I said the first time. Unless you're saying you would also shit the bed on Maddcow's command if there was a breathless announcement that Trump had talked to the ambassador of New Zealand last year. Or met with a businessman from Italy to discuss...business. But that would have meant that Hillary was the spawn of Satan to you, given her families foundation set up to take dirty money from foreign players.

      In which case you'd still be an insane xenophobe, but at least you'd be a consistent deranged xenophobe. Did I mention deranged? Because as a private citizen, Trump was perfectly free to talk to and conduct business with Russia.

      I'm not sure why anyone would adapt this cognitive dissonance.

      A great deal of cognitive dissonance is required - for everyone who's bought into the Russian hysteria, like yourself. What's really happening is that there is no evidence for Russia hacking the DNC's or Poedesta's emails, there never was. But rather than admit to being a bunch of assholes on a witch hunt, y'all are trying to manufacture a real scandal out of....something, anything.

      Same as Republicans settled on a manufactured perjury charge against Clinton in the 90's after their neurotic obsession with Whitewater and Vince Foster turned up buttkiss.

    97. Re: The media is by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      " But there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up " - Yes, there is. It's also classified.

      BREAKINGâSâ"âSAnonymous Sources Say Entire Syria Thing Is Fucking Bullshit

      "Those anonymous sources are wrong," said one anonymous source of the claims made by AP's anonymous source. "This whole thing is bullshit and everyone is lying."

      When pressed for details on how the anonymous source knew AP's anonymous source wasn't telling the truth, the source said, "I've got my sources," adding, "You can't talk to them, though. They only speak to me on condition of anonymity."

    98. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government pays the news companies, in many cases working with them. The left is just as guilty of this sort of propaganda and lies as well. CNN, FOX ect.. they all do the same thing. The media are paid shills. They lied about Trump and now they are making up more fake news to try to discredit him.

    99. Re: The media is by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Someone knows their printing.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    100. Re: The media is by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Clinton sucked. What does that have to do with Trump's surrounding himself with the likes of Flynn and Manafort

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    101. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP didn't say "hard" evidence. They said "any evidence, large or small".

      That said, can you refute or otherwise show the citations to be less than "hard" evidence?

    102. Re:The media is by murdocj · · Score: 1

      To go a little further on this... one of the phrases I ran into was something like "that Steph Curry really knows how to dodge the ball". It was something that absolutely no one would ever say. It wasn't a slight twisting of a reasonable phrase (like Garo Ypremian's "I kick the touchdown!"), it was someone trying to sound American, and failing badly.

      I see no reason to doubt that Russia is conducting a campaign to disrupt the democracies. It makes perfect sense, and it's pretty clever, turning a strength (openness and free speech) into a weakness. And it's not the kind of thing we can turn around on Russia because of the tight state control of the media.

    103. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if Trump is in debt to them, if he has legally separated himself from his businesses as reported, it doesn't matter.

    104. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which Voice of America notes was the “first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year,” was caught misrepresenting data in their December report purportedly showing Russian interference in our elections.

      http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html

      From Voice of America:
      WASHINGTON — U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.
      http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

      In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with pro-Russian separatists.
      VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
      Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never happened. http://www.voanews.com/a/3776067.html

      Some see overblown allegations

      CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown.
      After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by “Fancy Bear,” a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.
      CrowdStrike’s claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
      On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
      The company removed language that said Ukraine’s artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.
      The original CrowdStrike report was dated Dec. 22, 2016, https://docs.voanews.eu/en-US/2017/03/24/56a1a18b-b575-41d6-9ffb-be27e3907a89.pdf

      and the updated reportwas dated March 23, 2017. https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/idc-vendor-profile-crowdstrike-2/

      The company also removed language

      https://docs.voanews.eu/en-US/2017/03/23/13e4fe03-a7a7-47ab-b88a-9eb9a2449d19.pdf

      saying Ukraine’s howitzers suffered “the highest percentage of loss of any artillery pieces in Ukraine’s arsenal.”
      Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying “deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform” — meaning the howitzers — and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea.
      In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact.
      What else did they make up and misrepresent?
      Why did FBI director James Comey praise CrowdStrike as “highly respected” and rely on their second hand reporting to inform the FBI what supposedly happened with the DNC’s hacked servers?
      As Breitbart reported on March 20th:
      four days after the Ukrainian DOD denied Crowdstrike’s report — Director Comey admitted that the FBI had been denied access to the DNC servers and prai

    105. Re: The media is by NG-Buddhist · · Score: 1

      We actually do not know this for a fact. You're connecting dots based on a hunch, not on evidence. Feel free to retort if you'd like, but if you do, please have the balls to post with your user handle instead of anonymously.

    106. Re:The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      WRONG!
      People who argue that there was crime when the investigators say there was not are CREATING the breakdown of law.

    107. Re:The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong
      A special prosecutor has a fixed Brief and may not stray from that
      Russia and Trump is all he is empowered to do
      NOT an independent prosecutor
      YOUR idiots allowed that law to expire

    108. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Who in their right mind believes anything FAUX says?
      The fact it, under TRUMP the NSA says the attacks came from Russia
      Sounds like they are doing their job.
      90% of Slashdot are not insane Trumpists or Teagaggers.

    109. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      I know that spoofing leaves obvious tracks in the routing data
      So does the NSA.
      That's how they found your chumps.

    110. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      Facts
      And facts prove that Putin wanted a weak president
      You gave him his birthday wish.
      Now shut the hell up while America sorts out the nest of Traitors and sycophants you love

    111. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong
      Just as the 13th Amendment vititated the 3/5 compromise, so the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal Rights Privileges and Immunities invalidates the electoral college
      Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to face up to this and the Ruralists will have to face that this is a REPUBLIC and the PUBLIC rules it!

    112. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Nor do I need it
      What is postulated without evidence (a coverup or conspiracy against Trump) may be DISREGARDED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

    113. Re: The media is by Gussington · · Score: 1

      No, what's happening now is that there is no evidence to support Russian hacking and there never was.

      CIA, NSA and even senior Republicans seem to think otherwise. As untrustworthy as they are, they are still more trustworthy than some anonymous internet forum guy. Good luck with your mission comrade...

    114. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we don't need the government anymore? Maybe we can self-regulate through crowdsourcing, AI, and the Interwebs?

    115. Re:The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Trump is irrefutably up to his eyeballs in debt to Putin connected billionaires.

      Did you even read the article you linked? One guy, in the UK, who was out of government after 2004 says in 2008 Trump suggests that maybe in 2008 Trump borrowed money from Russians. He's not even stating that Trump did borrow money, just that the possibility exists that he did.

      If this is irrefutable evidence then you have bizarrely low standards for evidence. Either that, or, you were just looking for validation from this article, not information.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    116. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! I can't even watch the news anymore. Even the local news, which used to be much more neutral and fact based, is now starting to run hyped "you need to know this or you will die" type stories. The rest of the stories are sports stats, car crashes, or house/building fires. National news is so skewed one way or the other I have to constantly read between the lines for figure out the truth. And it's so depressing that I can only watch the last 10 minutes for the somewhat uplifting human interest stories. Anymore I just let my friends and family tell me what's happening or I watch the weekend news to get recaps. Of course, I get some "news" here at Slashdot as well.

    117. Re: The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Link to the NSA demonstrating that? I seem to recall the report came from the CIA, and their "evidence" amounted to "this is in line with the sort of things Russians want to do," plus some Cyrillic characters left over in files and some timestamps that corresponded to Russian working hours. Of course, one of the leaked CIA hacking tools, UMBRAGE, does exactly this. You press a button for "make it look like the Russians did it" and it makes it look like the Russians did it, "make it look like the Chinese did it" and it makes it look like the Chinese did it. These tools were available on the black market for over a year before the DNC hack, so literally anyone could have done this.

      The CIA and the media want you to believe the Russians did it, but it is by no means proven.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    118. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Robert from Iowa" may have indeed been the poster's name. They adopt American names in real life to blend in.

    119. Re:The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You're also missing the way in which news is manufactured by news agencies reporting on other news agency reporting. For instance, during the election a story was started about Russian twitter bots supporting Trump. One "journalist" claimed that twitter accounts he was looking at years ago for spouting Russian propaganda were now spouting Trump propaganda. He gave no evidence of this. No twitter handles for viewers to go look at, no screenshots, no examples of what kind of propaganda, Russian or Trumpian these things were pushing. That got reported by Buzzfeed as something like "Russian troll bots may be spamming for Trump," then reported by NYT as "Are Russian bots spreading pro-Trump messages?" with a link to the Buzzfeed article and then CNN "NY Times reports Trump's online support from fake Russian accounts." And now it's just common knowledge that Russian propaganda bots have haxx0red the minds of every American voter, despite never getting so much a screenshot of a single one of these bots.

      I'm far less concerned about what Russian troll bots are doing than what Buzzfeed, CNN, and the NY Times are doing. People sort of believe a few of the things that come out of the later.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    120. Re:The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And then they spin it in circles. CNN reports "According to an article in the New York Times, aliens are raping bigfoot," referencing a NYT Times article "Are aliens raping bigfoot?" which cites a Buzzfeed article "Twitter exploding about alien/bigfoot rape" which references some twitter account spamming alien/bigfoot rape stories made up on 4chan. By the next week every news agency has stopped with the question marks and "mays" and "could bes" in their headlines and are just reporting on everyone's reaction to all the alien/bigfoot rape going on.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    121. Re:The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It would be helpful if there were any evidence, at all, of a Russian disinformation campaign. What sort of disinformation were the Russians spreading?

      Are you sure it's not that rather than take responsibility for their horrid candidate and massively corrupt party the Democrats are just blaming everything on Russia as a distraction?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    122. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Russian.

    123. Re: The media is by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Apples and Oranges. And potatoes for tha matter.

      The only vote that the Constitution allows is the Electoral Vote.

      True, but in my lifetime is has gone from being a quirk of the US Constitution that I was told I would probably never see in high school and college to the road to putting Republicans in the White House. While I'm not going to argue against the system, it is a sign of things that are going on in the US, namely large populous states versus small populous states which is what the system was created with regards to. Of course, you can look t why those states are less populous, and in many cases worse off economically per capita. Add in recent (in our lifetimes) changes in politics to more polarized partisan systems and you start to see what is going on in the US.

    124. Re:The media is by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we as a society have redefined ratings to impressions and clicks. The content that gets the most impressions is the content that makes you angry.
      At the same time nobody practices journalism any more, because the push is to create content, content, content faster and faster. More content = more chances for impressions and clicks.
      This has created a system where the slightly media savvy can seed a lower level blog with some fake story based on a few fake people with fake emails... where it's picked up by a higher level blog... where it is picked up by the main stream press. As a result MOST if not ALL of what you read is designed with one thing and one thing only - to get impressions and clicks. It's almost ALL fake news and nobody cares, and this will only get worse because we allow it to.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    125. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Right
      The NSA did not submit confirmation to the CIA as to source addresses and routing indicators
      And peter rabbit just saved Trump
      oh, wait, none of that is any more real than your claim there is no evidence.

    126. Re: The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Again, link?

      Also, since when does anyone on /. believe a thing the NSA or CIA says?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    127. Re:The media is by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure what would possibly satisfy you. Is USA Today sufficiently mainstream? Trump's business network reached alleged Russian mobsters.

      To expand his real estate developments over the years, Donald Trump, his company and partners repeatedly turned to wealthy Russians and oligarchs from former Soviet republics — several allegedly connected to organized crime, according to a USA TODAY review of court cases, government and legal documents and an interview with a former federal prosecutor.

      The president and his companies have been linked to at least 10 wealthy former Soviet businessmen with alleged ties to criminal organizations or money laundering.

      Among them:

      A member of the firm that developed the Trump SoHo Hotel in New York is a twice-convicted felon who spent a year in prison for stabbing a man and later scouted for Trump investments in Russia.

      An investor in the SoHo project was accused by Belgian authorities in 2011 in a $55 million money-laundering scheme.

      Three owners of Trump condos in Florida and Manhattan were accused in federal indictments of belonging to a Russian-American organized crime group and working for a major international crime boss based in Russia.

      A former mayor from Kazakhstan was accused in a federal lawsuit filed in Los Angeles in 2014 of hiding millions of dollars looted from his city, some of which was spent on three Trump SoHo units.

      A Ukrainian owner of two Trump condos in Florida was indicted in a money-laundering scheme involving a former prime minister of Ukraine.

    128. Re:The media is by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      So, among the many, many, many people who bought Trump condos were some alleged Russian mobsters? And that makes Trump a Putin puppet?

      Is the car dealership you purchased your last vehicle from a StevenMaurer puppet?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    129. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want religions calling for prayer anywhere near me or even in my country. There's individual religions I don't mind, but the religious culture should have no significant power anywhere. Letting them gather demographic and political power anywhere will lead to disaster far more certainly than Putin trying to incorporate land with Russophones.

      FTFY

    130. Re:The media is by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Right, because "investigators" are pure angels who are completely immune to bias.

    131. Re:The media is by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      My idiots? I wear a team jersey?

    132. Re:The media is by spkay31 · · Score: 1

      FRANK ZAPPA LYRICS "I'm The Slime" [backing vocals Tina Turner & The Ikettes] I am gross and perverted I'm obsessed 'n deranged I have existed for years But very little has changed I'm the tool of the Government And industry too For I am destined to rule And regulate you I may be vile and pernicious But you can't look away I make you think I'm delicious With the stuff that I say I'm the best you can get Have you guessed me yet? I'm the slime oozin' out From your TV set You will obey me while I lead you And eat the garbage that I feed you Until the day that we don't need you Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you Your mind is totally controlled It has been stuffed into my mold And you will do as you are told Until the rights to you are sold That's right, folks . . . Don't touch that dial Well, I am the slime from your video (news media) Oozin' along on your livin' room floor I am the slime from your video (news media) Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go I am the slime from your video (news media) Oozin' along on your livin' room floor I am the slime from your video (news media) Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

    133. Re:The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said

    134. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it's funny. I actually clicked on the links and read the articles, expecting to see some kind of bombshell evidence, or at least something credible to indicate that maybe there is something to the Russian diatribe... but you know what I found instead? A bunch of speculation and zero proof of anything. So you're gonna sit there and berate somebody for "not addressing the many referenced sources and facts that were presented", when there's literally nothing but speculation in those sources? Seriously? There's -NOTHING- in those articles! Thanks for wasting my time!

      This is why people are disenfranchised with the media, there's far too much crap out there and MSM is no different. The amount of shit one has to dig through to find any semblance of the truth is staggering. Like you said yourself, they live and die by the ratings, so how anybody could still think there isn't made-up crap coming from them, too, is beyond me. You can't just publish an article, with no citations, using words like "alleged", claiming "so-and-so said this happened", then pass it off as fact. I don't care who wrote it, that's BS journalism and dishonest reporting.

      ...and people wonder why Trump limits and restricts MSM press coverage of him. God forbid it's because they're actually running a campaign to smear him and he doesn't want to play their game, oh heavens no, that's crazy tinfoil-wearing conspiracy talk there! But RUSSIA! MUH RUSSIAGATES! Buh-GAWK! Pay no attention to the legitimate leaked e-mails that show extensive fraud and corruption in the DNC, that's not the issue! The issue is who did the leaking! It was Seth Ri- I mean, the Russians!

    135. Re: The media is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      What the NSA demonstrated is that it's basically impossible to know where the attacks have been coming from because it's so easy for them to spoof. Do try and keep up.

    136. Re: The media is by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Facts don't come from DNC talking points.

      Go Fuck yourself.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    137. Re: The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Since when does anyone believe anything your hero Drumpf says?
      Again, the facts are in evidence, those with clearance have determined there was a direct attack on the election process
      and what do you have, besides Trump lies?

    138. Re:The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Right, because all the investigators so far reported are lifelong REPUBLICAN'TS and would prefer to see Hillary frickaseed.
      Thus the October Surprise.
      But now, seeing high treason, they are anxious to redeem themselves

    139. Re:The media is by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No, your team likes to hide

  2. Arab Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was hailed as the first social media induced political movement. Remember how Faceboob and Twitter were supposed to spread freedom? The use of the media is not new, the new development is that Democrats are upset about that use.

    1. Re:Arab Spring by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Celebrated by western media, funded by western NGOs, increased the power of Islamist and destabilized the region.

      If the mainstream media is honest, they are honestly fucking incompetent and dangerous.

  3. muh russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    muh russia russia russia muh russia

    Signed,
      - Your corporate and political masters

  4. Is Russia blah blah blah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I kinda hope Russia just nukes us already. Clearly this is what the media wants, let's get it over with.

    1. Re:Is Russia blah blah blah? by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

      I kinda hope Russia just nukes us already. Clearly this is what the media wants, let's get it over with.

      Haha!

      Don't joke like that, dude. Not funny.

    2. Re:Is Russia blah blah blah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Russian spy!

    3. Re:Is Russia blah blah blah? by FilatovEV · · Score: 2

      Nice try Russian spy!

      Well, I'm actually a Russian. Which makes me wondering, if you are so hell-bent on committing a mass suicide, why won't you use American nukes for that purpose?

      Now, the really scary part is that starting a war is traditionally the means to resolve a domestic crisis, and it totally looks like the U.S. is in the middle of one.

    4. Re:Is Russia blah blah blah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media doesn't want us to kill ourselves, they want the Russians to do it. And when everyone is on fire, they will think with their last thoughts "We were right, the Republicans are just the worst".

    5. Re:Is Russia blah blah blah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >why won't you use American nukes for that purpose

      Because they lost, so they don't have access to them. Kinda give a little incentive not to vote D next time.

    6. Re:Is Russia blah blah blah? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It's not a joke. It is one possible result of the press and democrats ramping up the "red scare" tactics.

      Sad that we finally have a president that could get us some normalcy a reduction in aggression and stonewalling but our defeated political party and the press are destroying any chance of peaceful progress. It is like they really want a war with Russia.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  5. Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My understanding is that most of the emails were in fact true. The DNC never claimed the emails were false, just complaining that their dirty laundry got out for everyone to see.

    1. Re: Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what they don't want Democrats to think about.

      Russia Russia Russia Russia!

      (We rigged the primary against Bernie and got all the debate questions before the debates)

      Russia Russia Russia!!

    2. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the emails were true, and that is sad. Should be required reading in schools.
      BTW, why does the left hate Russia? They used to love them back 20 years ago or so.

    3. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that most of the emails were in fact true. The DNC never claimed the emails were false, just complaining that their dirty laundry got out for everyone to see.

      You're missing the point.

      1) The content of the emails, in addition to being true, were also remarkably benign. All that really came up was the party generally favoured Clinton's camp, but didn't really do anything about it. The biggest smoking gun was an operative getting hold of a debate question and slipping it to the campaign (and we don't actually know if the campaign actually used the question to prep the candidate).

      2) A big part of Russia's campaign was making the contents of the emails sound really bad and ominous.

      3) Even if there was sketchy stuff in the emails the problem is we're only seeing one side's email. There was doubtless a lot of fishy stuff in the RNC emails, and I think Russia even hacked them too, but by sharing only the DNCs emails they were able to push the vote in a specific direction.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re: Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking liar.

      Hillary was given debate questions for at least FOUR DIFFERENT DEBATES. They tried to lie about it, then blamed the Russians, then suppressed the fucking story of the decade.

      News organizations sent over twenty potentially negative stories about Hillary to her campaign for approval first.

      The election was rigged. For Hillary. The Democrats still managed to fuck it up, despite all of the cards being dealt under the table, and despite brainless sniveling patsy simpletons like you willing to believe literally anything they said.

      Fuck you.

    5. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNC never claimed the emails were false,

      They did claim the emails were false, in a smarmy walk-backable way.

      Their claim was refuted simply, by DKIM.

    6. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      The issue is that there was nothing really in the emails worth note but yet everyone on the right screamed about them.

      I still do not understand where the "lock her up" originated. There's nothing illegal mentioned in any of the emails.

      Even Wikileaks stretched the truth with the "nuclear secrets" bull they tweeted. The email had a PDF with a small nuclear policy training manual and it wasn't sent even from Clinton, yet half a dozen fake news stories popped up about it.

    7. Re: Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by mixed_signal · · Score: 1

      Except you're wrong and just repeating incorrect right/alt-right talking points. Read the primary sources (the emails) on this. A couple DNC staffers did discuss via email whether there was some way they could minimize Sanders, but they also discussed how they could not due to explicit guidelines from the DNC chair. In any case, the whole thing is BS because the DNC does not run the primaries. The states do, and Sanders was in the primaries and did pretty well. Second, HRC certainly did not receive debate questions. The alleged incident was about her being given a heads up about some topic that might come up at a town hall meeting, like Flint, MI's water problem. A town hall discussion not a debate, and this was one of the most current topics in the news related to governance. Big deal.

    8. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by mixed_signal · · Score: 1

      "Why does the left hate Russia?" Stupid question. Why would any American trust Russia is the question.

    9. Re: Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by mixed_signal · · Score: 1

      Post some citations on this. The only known info like this HRC was given were a heads up on possible topics for a town hall meeting, and they were quite obvious. For example: http://thehill.com/media/32458...

    10. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I still do not understand where the "lock her up" originated.

      She copied classified documents to an unsecured, non-government server. People not named Clinton are routinely prosecuted and locked up for doing that.

      There's an idea, going back centuries, that laws should apply equally to all. Hence "lock her up", because that's what the law says and that's what would happen to her if we still had "rule of law" rather than "rule of men" (which is where some special people are above the law and need not obey laws).

    11. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal to place classified documents on a non-government server. Government contractors do it all the time.

      The only way they could file charges against her is if she intentionally mishandled the documents in several ways, none of which could be proven from the evidence.

      You can't throw people in jail by twisting the truth with a bunch of baseless rhetoric. Learn the facts and the law.

    12. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      She did intentionally mishandle them. She intentionally, knowingly copied them to a home server. It's the same as making copies of them and taking them home.

    13. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not illegal to place classified documents on a non-government server. Government contractors do it all the time.

      The only way they could file charges against her is if she intentionally mishandled the documents in several ways, none of which could be proven from the evidence.

      You can't throw people in jail by twisting the truth with a bunch of baseless rhetoric. Learn the facts and the law.

      Wow, you are just a font of UTTER WRONG, aren't you?

      Must be desperate to make HiLIARy! look good, eh?

      The relevant law:

      (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

      Only negligence or a failure to report is needed to commit a FELONY.

      Intent is not needed.

      Comey let Hillary! off.

    14. Re:Disinformation of Hillary Clinton? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      She had intent. She knew all about email servers and how they work. She ordered an audit of her 2008 campaign's email server to try to determine who was leaking to the press.

      And yeah, your comments are correct. (But the ridiculous all caps and bold and exclamation points assure that no one will take you seriously. If you don't want to be viewed as an unhinged crank, stop acting like one. )

  6. The S in USSR by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Crimea invasion and now this? It looks like long-time KGBer Vladimir Putin is serious about rebuilding the Union of Soviet Social-ist Republics.

    1. Re: The S in USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Crimea....that was the direct result of the US meddling in Ukraine's government. Remember the leaked phone conversations from the state department? Now Ukraine went from a shitty, corrupt government sympathetic to Russia to a shitty,corrupt (arguably worse) government aligned with the US.

    2. Re:The S in USSR by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If only we had know Lenin was talking about social media when he said socialism, we'd have had more empathy.
      Because indeed that would have been a cause worth fighting against.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: The S in USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you said the thing and did a funny.

      But no, ypur assumption is baseless.

    4. Re:The S in USSR by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Crimea invasion and now this? It looks like long-time KGBer Vladimir Putin is serious about rebuilding the Union of Soviet Social-ist Republics.

      More about rebuilding Imperial Russia if you ask me. Then again, even the Soviet Union was just an Imperial Russia with some economic and presentation differences.

  7. Strategic Identity Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they want to the US democracy to crumble so that it would be replaced with a US democracy? Or a military junta which finally launches the missiles, after such a long wait? What a relief it would be!

    1. Re:Strategic Identity Function by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      No shit, what's the fucking end game here? Are we supposed to believe that Russia is trying to topple American democracy so it can be replaced by some military dictatorship that probably wouldn't think twice about going to war with Russia?

      "You see comrade, we avoid war with America by coaxing America to go to war with us!"

    2. Re:Strategic Identity Function by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Ahh the knee jerk and the hand wringing, I bet Putin is more than pleased to pass on the history books as the guy who trolled the democratic process in the land that "invented" democracy. Putin is happy to be able to say "look I egg faced America" while the only thing that he did was putting the eggs in the table. The whole world gets it, your exceptionalism blinds you to the most obvious forms of attack.

      Good to know tho, for all the bs propaganda gets from the people in here, theres a non legible share of people that are still programmed by the McCartism era propaganda and can spring up the discourse like it is fucking 64. Pavlov would be fucking proud.

      America is closer to civil war and disintegration than to engage in an external war with a country that can reply with more than IEDs. But of course you have to drag it to the territory of the Nukes© and MAD© to feel secure and worthy back again.

      No, America is closer to flip thanks to meme than a nuke, you can blame how you raised all that bunch of millennials that would give up their constitution if it gave them more stickers in snapchat.

    3. Re:Strategic Identity Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the end game is that the Democrats are back in power and the liberal media is happy again. You see this whole Russia meme is just propaganda and a weak attempt at derailing the Trump agenda. But they don't realize how stupid they look to the average American and why Trump and the Republicans will be in office for next 8 years.

  8. Hype is hype by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The vast majority of the article can be summed as, "astroturfing." I think we've known for a while that various governments pay people to enter forums and post messages trying control the narrative.

    There is a paragraph about phishing that largely is quoted in the summary. The article doesn't make clear whether these are phishing attacks from the Russian government, or just from Russia.

    Overall, the article is an example of the breathless hyperbole that fills every news article these days.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Hype is hype by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The vast majority of the article can be summed as, "astroturfing.""

      I'd add that it's not even astrotufing about the old two-blocks world.

      The titular should be something like "Is Time Conducting a News War on Social Media?"

      As the likes of Twitter, Facebook, etc. are killing the "old way" Time represents, Time, of course, counterattacks in a desperate attempt to stay relevant: in USA one of the worst things you can call somebody is "communist"; you'd better call somebody son-of-a-bitch than communist; Russia epitomizes "communist", therefore Twitter *must* be communist.

    2. Re:Hype is hype by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think we've known for a while that various governments pay people to enter forums and post messages trying control the narrative.

      I haven't heard of any other nation coming close to the scale of Russia:

      "Russia's information war might be thought of as the biggest trolling operation in history,"

      There is a paragraph about phishing that largely is quoted in the summary. The article doesn't make clear whether these are phishing attacks from the Russian government, or just from Russia.

      Uh, yes, TFA does say it came straight from Russian soldiers:

      In one case last year, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, a Russian soldier based in Ukraine successfully infiltrated a U.S. social media group by pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife and weighing in on political debates with specially tailored messages.

      Overall, the article is an example of the breathless hyperbole that fills every news article these days.

      Heh TFA says "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources". Hrm.

    3. Re:Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep you nailed it ...a Soros pimp is mau-mauing the American sheeple with Russki threats. USA media-sluts aid and abet this nibberizing fake-news. Trumps yeomanry base ( 75,000,000 + ) ignore the globalist scab-journalism ... and indeed trust Putin+pals much more than blo-jobbing faggocentric USA media. Fact!

    4. Re:Hype is hype by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Ours is simply more sophisticated, relies on soft pressure and tends to have plausible deniability ... instead of outright money streams paying liars.

      They get every almost polling service to say Hillary will win by complete coincidence, Russia has to be a little more forceful.

    5. Re:Hype is hype by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Heh TFA says "the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources"

      If that is truly the goal of Russian hackers, then they are doing us a favor.
      Now if only we can get people to doubt news sources they agree with.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Hype is hype by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uh, yes, TFA does say it came straight from Russian soldiers:

      No. I'm going to point out that you fell for the exact trick the article wanted you to do, and mixed up phishing, hacking, and atro-turfing. The article purposely conflates those, but you did it accidentally. You need to turn off your emotions and turn on your brain. This article is attempting to deceive you.

      I'll give you another hint: when it says "successfully infiltrated a social media group" what it means is "signed up for an account."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come up for air from immersion in your feces/irony tank once in awhile, bro.

    8. Re:Hype is hype by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      They get every almost polling service to say Hillary will win by complete coincidence, Russia has to be a little more forceful.

      How dare you? Don't you know polls are Scientific, and we all know Scientific means UNEQUIVOCAL TRUTH ! Why do you hate Science? Why do you hate Truth? Are you an anti-science heretic? All hail the glory of SCIENCE ! SCIENCE!

    9. Re:Hype is hype by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      It was know in the campaign that Drumph supporters were told to say they would vote for Hellary if asked by pollsters. Who told them? idk, maybe your average Crumb supporter on the web,.. oh wait.

    10. Re:Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Clickbait FUD to deliver the latest imaginary Soviet agents defiling our precious bodily fluids with fluoridation.

      There's several domains of propaganda, here's three (3) overlapping ones:

      Corporate TV propaganda is generally-accepted as gospel because people don't know anything else. Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Nixon administration. Other PR and talking heads with industry incentives convince people global warming is a hoax, unionizing is treasonous, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, trickle-down economics works and regulations against pollution and sensible limits are always bad.

      Reactionary, conspiracy theory wingnuts play on people's fears, anger and perceived injustices to convince them of a manufactured, magnified problem and it's aggressive, simplistic "solutions" (while selling them their products).

      Political propaganda by sock-puppet manufacture of sentiment is enabled by the digital social accessibly of almost every voter. Incumbents and challengers of any government or organization are motivated now to "move the needle" of the narrative by not just surrogates, but algorithms which can post millions more comments, spanning the spectrum from unsophisticated spam to sophisticated sentiment analysis and attack.

    11. Re:Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you another hint: when it says "successfully infiltrated a social media group" what it means is "signed up for an account."

      ...And gained the trust of the other participants.

    12. Re:Hype is hype by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      CNN Breaking News!!! Slashdot reader phantomfive wrote: "example of the breathless hyperbole that fills every news article these days"!!! CNN Breaking News!!!



      !!!

    13. Re:Hype is hype by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If only I'd written it on twitter instead, I could have made the evening news. :(

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Hype is hype by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      It's like a third tier blog says a crazy person ranted on the street about something, and then CNN makes it Breaking News. "Unconfirmed sources at shitty third tier blog says..."

      And then the rest of the news media picks it up as, "CNN is now reporting..."

      It's absurd.

    15. Re:Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so sophisticated these days, when you see that the news are slanted 98% against Trump.

      I mean, look at the fucking Fox News. Who the hell decided to hire that libtard cunt Julie Roginstky on a conservative news channel? I mean, we get that CNN would do something like this, but Fox News? For those who don't know, she's a fucking DNC shill, with loads of Wikileaks (or hell, even Google News) info on it. What is the Killary stooge doing on a "conservative" channel?

      Who's in charge of our media, really?

    16. Re:Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I haven't heard of any other nation coming close to the scale of Russia:

      Because the Chinese are better at it? If you think Russia is influencing America, you might want to look back 20 years and re-frame events.

    17. Re: Hype is hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's truly shocking. With the forcing out of Ailes and O'Reilly for no reason, it is clear that Fix News has been infiltrated by libruls from the discredited Republican old guard trying to undo all the great things Trump has done. Even Breitbart is turning away from the true path now Bannon can't give it all his attention. You'd be surprised at some of the revisionism going on behind the scenes there.

    18. Re:Hype is hype by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      WTF? "It was known in the campaign"???

      That isn't enough. Folklore isn't evidence.

    19. Re:Hype is hype by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Even tho English is not my first language, I respect it very much to put the words "Trump" and "Evidence" in the same line. But thats not even the problem:

      We are starting from the supposition that polls (the ones you get to know in news, not the real ones) were fair to begin with, they were not, most of the lead attributed to Hellary was made up "if you looked at the data just right this way" it was obvious Shillary was stomping Trump, after all, IT WAS HER TURN © Late polls were more based on reality than wish thinking and they still gave her a bit of lead, which she had in the popular vote, which does not matter for shit in your democracy, so theres that.

    20. Re:Hype is hype by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard of any other nation coming close to the scale of Russia:

      How about the Hillary Clinton campaign and Correct the Record? They got millions of dollars to pay people to go post pro-HRC stuff and anti-Bernie/Trump stuff on social media. They completely dominated /r/politics on reddit. It's not a secret...there's FEC filings, news articles about them, the stated purpose of the organization on their website. They're now reorganized as ShareBlue and are continuing to do the same thing.

      I think we need campaign rules like the ones that say "This message approved by Such-and-Such campaign" on TV/radio, but for blog/social media posts. If you're being paid to write your comment there needs to be a disclaimer saying so at the bottom.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  9. It'd be easy for American housewife to... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: To pretend to be a Russian soldier via proxies or servers rented in Russia - The democratic party's (or rather China & Saudi Arabia behind them as the TRUE puppeteers along w/ IMF Rothschild Bankers & Soros) "losing it" TRYING to put forth their false narrative based on the above alone

    APK

    P.S.=> LET ALONE THEM NOT HAVING ANY SOLID EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER as well... apk

    1. Re:It'd be easy for American housewife to... apk by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely that an American housewife knows how to use a proxy or server rented in Russia. It's also unlikely that they would feel motivated to do so. American housewifes are happy just to share articles and memes, at least that is my observation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:It'd be easy for American housewife to... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      housewives think in terms of memes and are easily herded into manufactured consensus.

    3. Re:It'd be easy for American housewife to... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dribbling idiocy-check
      Stupid conspiracy theory-check
      Fals claim -check.
      Fat deluded virgin in moms basement-check.
      It really IS APK.

  10. Or is it a cover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Probably, but a large part of this is probably a cover for the work of Robert Mercer and his many tech buddies, formerly of Google, subverting American democracy.

    Most likely though, it's both together, possibly with the Russians working for the US based manipulators. This wouldn't be the first time that western plutocrats lined together with a dictator intent on destroying their countries.

  11. Rubbish by Archtech · · Score: 0, Troll

    "The article describes a Russian soldier in the Ukraine pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife".

    Blown right away. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine. And if there were, they would be too busy fighting off the crazed Ukrainian soldiers and Nazi battalions to do a lot of social media.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:Rubbish by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      "The article describes a Russian soldier in the Ukraine pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife".

      Blown right away. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

      Kadyrov, is that you?

      Oh, wait, maybe you're Mahmoud, I guess since you've been barred from running again, now you're ./ing from your Mom's basement :P

    2. Re:Rubbish by quonset · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

      No, of course not. All those freshly dug graves of Russian soldiers suddenly appearing and reporters being attacked investigating the sudden increase in dead Russian soldiers mean absolutely nothing.

      Don't forget the Russian special forces soldiers captured in Ukraine, the Russian officer captured while transporting ammunition and supplies, the Russian soldiers who have dropped the pretense they're not fighting in Ukraine while others have quit the army because they don't want to fight in Ukraine like their comrades. Then there are the terrorists themselves who fully admit Russian soldiers have been fighting for them.

      So yeah, no evidence whatsoever of Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine.

    3. Re:Rubbish by anonieuweling · · Score: 0

      If Russia is/was in UA why then did they not show their power?
      If Russias was there, then what to say about the USSA being there as well as most everywhere in the world?

    4. Re:Rubbish by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Irrelevant. Russia has every right to defend its interests. We started this shit, so have no right to judge what they are doing. We asked for it, actually.

      https://www.thenation.com/article/state-department-says-russia-invading-ukraine-should-we-believe-them

  12. 90% of social media promotes the left-wing agenda by ABEND · · Score: 2

    Occam's Razor says it's not "The Russians." "The Russians" do not have the resources to control U.S. (social) media. It does appear that some entity is using the media to create deeper political division in the U.S. It must be very expensive to do this but, it would be much less expensive for U.S. government agencies to do this instead of a foreign entity. Occam's Razor says this is an inside-job. If any entity is influencing the media it is much more likely to be the CIA rather than the Kremlin.

    --
    In all seriousness:
  13. Russians on Slashdot by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

    An advice for you, Ivan — do not post anonymously. Don't you have access to some stolen /.-accounts as described in TFA? Use that — you will be believed for a 5 seconds longer...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how quaint. you actually think not posting as ac makes your comment more relevant. 1863 called and wants their narrow vision back.

    2. Re:Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Boris

    3. Re: Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop with the redbaiting, you fucking neo-McCarthyites. You purportedly weren't even on ol' Joes side in his day, yet you recycle the redbaiting bullshit.

    4. Re:Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constant parroted accusations of someone being a Russian agent just because they disagree with your dogma is incredibly childish. It's a shallow debate tactic I thought people grew out of after age 12 or so.

      Apparently a number of people missed that maturation phase in their lives, which explains an awful lot about society these days.

    5. Re: Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Ivan but only Russians write like this:

      Crimea....that was the direct result of the US meddling in Ukraine's government.

    6. Re:Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the original OP.
      Ukraine is Russia's Mexico. What would we do if USSR fucked with the government in Mexico?
      Answer that, and you might understand why Putin did what he did. Showing great restraint, he only let a small part of Ukraine join Russia, and not the whole thing...
      PS: yes, it is unfair that the third world countries don't get to chose. so the fuck what? still beats a nuclear war.

    7. Re: Russians on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Showing great restraint, he only let a small part of Ukraine join Russia, and not the whole thing"

      Okay, my friends, you have begged enough, I will allow you to join us. Now please take your throat out from under my boot.

    8. Re:Russians on Slashdot by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      "Everyone I Don't Like is Russian: The Emotional Child's Guide to Political Debate."

      Yes kiddos, this classic is back from the red scare era with a new printing! See also the new sequels, "Everyone I Don't Like is Alt-Right," "Everyone I Don't Like is a Fascist," and announcing a discount closeout sale on that classic bestseller from yesteryear, "Everyone I Don't Like is Hitler."

      Also check out our new anonymous autobiography: "Antifa Tales: Why Assaulting and Attempting to Murder our Political Opponents In The Street Won't End Badly This Time Guys, We Swear!"

      Because if you can't make an argument, call the other team a name. The Left in America doing so has worked out great so far... for the Republicans.

  14. The worst part, Republicans don't mind being raped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are literally happier to take it up the ass from Moscow or any other authoritarian regime if they think it gets them some "gotcha" against their "real enemies" in the political social sphere. That's the sad part for America, you can't fix this lazy treason.

  15. ITT by sfled · · Score: 1

    Accordingly, everyone in this thread is potentially a Russian social media meddler.

    --
    I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    1. Re:ITT by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      I hope they know where to send the paycheck... I also apparently shill for big corporations, the Jews, the Illuminati, both the Republican and Democratic parties... and yet even though they know me well enough to bring me into their conspiracies, they apparently don't know where to send the damned payoff.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:ITT by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Hey we should, like, make a Facebook group or something, Ive been missing those checks for years too!

    3. Re:ITT by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It must be a conspiracy or something...

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  16. Speaking of proportions by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    Is a 42-year-old American housewife a threat to US security?

    1. Re: Speaking of proportions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's not 42 yet, and her mom isn't President, so we'll have to wait and see. Ugly and stupid are traits that work against it becoming an issue, tho.

    2. Re: Speaking of proportions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about Webb Hubbell's daughter here?

  17. No, but the media would surely have you believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Step back a moment and think. When was the last time the television industry work in my best interests, ever.

  18. Lying Russians by mi · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

    Rriight...

    crazed Ukrainian soldiers

    Yes, sure. Defending one's Motherland from invaders is "crazy".

    Nazi battalions

    The last National Socialist left Ukraine in 1944... He was in a hurry...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Lying Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      crazed Ukrainian soldiers

      Yes, sure. Defending one's Motherland from invaders is "crazy".

      Nazi battalions

      The last National Socialist left Ukraine in 1944... He was in a hurry...

      they sure did
      Besides, Russian soldiers all have perfect English grammar, and spend 10% of their time shooting dissidents and the other 90% posting on slashdot. It's not skeptical westerners at all. All loyal westerners think alike.

    2. Re:Lying Russians by mi · · Score: 0

      Besides, Russian soldiers all have perfect English grammar

      No one made any claims about all Russian soldiers.Most Russian soldiers don't know even the Russian grammar. Some Russian soldiers know English grammar better than most Americans do.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re: Lying Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you concede the point. Thanks for your honesty.

    4. Re: Lying Russians by mi · · Score: 0

      So you concede the point.

      To one doctored picture? You got to be kidding...

      No, kiddo, for a "Nazi" accusation to stand, there got to be gas chambers or, at least, concentration camps.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re: Lying Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, anti-Semitic opinions and actions are just mainstream.

    6. Re:Lying Russians by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      To one doctored picture? You got to be kidding...

      Lulz. Says the guy pushing propaganda about Russia "invading" Ukraine from right wing Ukrainian propagandists. Self-awareness is not a strong suit among American Exceptionalists.

      Yes, sure. Defending one's Motherland from invaders is "crazy".

      You mean the eastern half of Ukraine defending themselves from neo-nazis put in power by a U.S. coup of the elected government? What about them?

      See, this is why American Exceptionalists are in a lose-lose position on Ukraine. Because even if everything you said about a Russian invasion was true, it would be infinitely more justified than any U.S. "intervention" you can name. It's not like the U.S. would just sit around with its thumb up its ass if Russia overthrew the government of Mexico, and immediately made moves to bring the junta into the Warsaw Pact right on America's border.

    7. Re:Lying Russians by mi · · Score: 1

      Says the guy pushing propaganda about Russia "invading" Ukraine from right wing Ukrainian propagandists.

      Dude, Russia's very president admitted in 2015, after a year of denying, that it was Russian soldiers, who took over Crimea's institutions. Two years later you are still denying it?..

      You mean the eastern half of Ukraine defending themselves from neo-nazis

      As I said, for a Nazi accusation to stand, you must show evidence of gas chambers, concentration camps, or — bare minimum — ethnic cleansings. Without that you are just tripping over Godwin's Law...

      What about them?

      Collaborators with the enemy have always suffered badly in the end.

      by a U.S. coup of the elected government

      Bullshit.

      if Russia overthrew the government of Mexico

      For that, you Russian assholes need an attractive way of life — with decent economy and standard of living. And for that you need to be properly Capitalist and otherwise decent — everything you touch until then will become North Korea at worst or Venezuela at best.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Lying Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Modded, so post as AC!

      The last Nazi left Ukraine in 1944

      How it is so easy!?

      http://thejewishchronicle.net/...

      In hundreds of media briefings and interviews, Zissels called the revolution “an expression of the Ukrainian people’s desire for independence, Western democracy and an end to the corruption by sellout leaders,” as he put it at one news conference in Kiev in 2014.
      That defense of the revolution, coming from a former political prisoner who spent nearly 10 years in a Soviet prison, severely undermined Putin’s narrative.
      Two years later, Zissels finds himself at the center of another controversy that confounds good guy-bad guy narratives in Eastern Europe, especially when it comes to anti-Semitism.

    9. Re: Lying Russians by mi · · Score: 1

      Kid, Ukraine's current Prime Minister is Jewish, as are some of the "oligarchs". There are enough Jews in the "Right Sector" to cause severe consternation to the actual Nazis. Ethnic Jews, along with Russians, Georgians, Tatars, etc. fought and died to defend their country from the invaders.

      You expect to just throw unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Semitism around anonymously and be believed?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Lying Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I actually manage a team of Ukrainian programmers. The Nazi epidemic is becoming a serious problem over there, according to them. Some of them have had to move to other cities because they weren't safe anymore (any non-Nazi is a target for extermination for a Nazi), and many are considering leaving the country before the inevitable happens.

  19. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't just make up a figure, right lying cunt Abend? Maybe the entire world has an agenda contrary to your idiot's quest?

  20. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely CIA. Been at war with Trump for a while now.

    Ironic now that the left wing is in league with the CIA and its enemies are The Russians.

    God what a twist from 30 years ago.

  21. Seriously by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Blaming Russia is one thing, but if your official fucking email is GMAIL OR HOTMAIL and you use it for official party/government correspondence AND you're dumb enough to be phished, then Russia can only take part of the blame.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Seriously by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Blaming thieves is one thing, but if you primary residence has a door, and you spend most of your time there AND you're dumb enough to answer the door when a well-disguised attacker knocks, then the thief can only take part of the blame.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Seriously by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In the USA? The cops steal five times as much stuff, year in year out as burglars do.

      Also, some bendejho federal judge has recorded an opinion that opening your door amounts to inviting the cops into the front room. Hence, security screen door with a good solid lock. Talk to people through it, stop push ins before they start. Keeps 'the hounds' from being unintentionally released.

      Works for all criminals, not only those that wear blue.

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

      To continue your analogy: If you live in the worst part of town, everyone has steel doors and bars in their windows except you, and you have a rolls royce parked in front...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Seriously by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      That would make you an idiot, but should not take any blame off of the thief, who still decided to break the law, regardless of whether you were an easy target or not.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Seriously by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      In the USA? The cops steal five times as much stuff, year in year out as burglars do.

      Yes, yes.. Cops are bad, gub'mint is bad... I'm quite familiar with the typical bias of Slashdotters.

      Fortunately, statistics are easily available which provide a more reasonable picture: In 2015, the last year for which full reports are available, burglary alone cost Americans $3.6 billion, while asset forfeiture only totaled $1.6 billion.

      Also, some bendejho federal judge has recorded an opinion that opening your door amounts to inviting the cops into the front room.

      I'm not familiar with the precise case in question, but the usual rule of thumb is that the officers are allowed to check to ensure their own safety. If that means they have to check the area immediately inside the door, then so be it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Seriously by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Blaming Russia is one thing, but if your official fucking email is GMAIL OR HOTMAIL and you use it for official party/government correspondence AND you're dumb enough to be phished, then Russia can only take part of the blame.

      What if you use Twitter?

    7. Re:Seriously by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      At best, that 1.6 billion is the federal asset forfeiture money. I'm not sure it is, it's the amount deposited to 'the fund', bet the enforcement agencies take their cut before it hits the fund.

      In any case, it doesn't include any local and state asset forfeitures.

      Also note: Burglary includes what many would call 'shoplifting' in many cases these days. Upcharging, I believe it's called. If they came in planning on stealing, it's burglary. Punishment for using an RFID shielded bag in practice.

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

      Also: Do you have a security screen door on your house? They became more popular after the cops 'decided' that opening your door amounted to 'consent to search', except it doesn't, if you have a locked screen door. So, do you?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Seriously by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      That's actually not how it works. All forfeitures go into the fund, and disbursements come out of that down to the state and local agencies, after all victim payouts are handled.

      Shoplifting is an interesting case, since it exactly fits the topic of discussion: The shoplifters were literally invited into the store, but they still broke the law by shoplifting. Does the store get blamed for having the naivete to allow shoppers inside?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:Seriously by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you. Citation needed. Many states have their own civil forfeiture laws. The IRS also has cops that steal money from 'criminals'. Locals take vehicles and just keep them...Are you trying to claim those vehicles go to the feds first, before being returned to the very cops that stole them in the first place?

      The point is: Burglary is no longer what is commonly defined. Do most people think 'premeditated shoplifting' when they hear burglary? No, they think house breakin when empty.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about counter-intelligence agencies fabricating evidence to make it look like we are under attack in order to exploit it politically?

  23. No by segedunum · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is mental insanity because there isn't any evidence at all of electoral fraud, vote rigging or coercion of voters. You know, the kind of hard evidence you'd need to substantiate an allegation of 'hacking' or 'influencing' the election.

    All we get is this kind of brain damage about completely unsubstantiated Russian 'bots' and some bizarrely incredibly mind control project Putin has.

    1. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is evidence of election rigging.

      See: DNC emails where Bernie Sanders was artificially blocked from the nomination, and where Hillary was given debate questions before each debate.

    2. Re:No by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the alternative is admitting that Hillary lost because she's terrible and because her views are out of step with the public.

      And that can't be true, right? If it were, Republicans would also control the House and the Senate and the majority of the state governorships and the state legislatures.

    3. Re:No by DogDude · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is mental insanity because there isn't any evidence at all of electoral fraud, vote rigging or coercion of voters.

      You're a liar.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well that's good, because there isn't any accusation of electoral fraud, vote rigging or coercion of voters (except by Trump).

      Like a good infowarrior you erected a poor strawman to avoid recognition of the actual concern.

      Good job, man!

      Glad Russia didn't have any trouble manipulation social media. You are a poster child.

    5. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no hard evidence of electoral fraud or vote rigging.
      As for coercion of voters, as far as I can tell, that is what an electoral campaign for office is.

    6. Re:No by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Russia doesn't get involved directly... They just take advantage of useful idiots, the alt-right in this case. Organised trolling and conspiracy theory mongering on social media goes a long way when idiots amplify it for you.

      Interestingly GCHQ uses the same tactics, according to leaks from Snowden. I wonder if Russia learned from them, or if it's a case of parallel evolution.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that nothing on that page shows evidence of election fraud, vote rigging, or coercion of voters in the US presidential election.

      You are an excellent example of the insanity of the Leftists who cannot understand why they lost.

    8. Re:No by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      It's a word association game designed to stick in people's subconscious. Constant repetition.

      Trump - Russians - hacking - investigation - impeach
      Trump - Russians - hacking - investigation - impeach
      Trump - Russians - hacking - investigation - impeach
      Trump - Russians - hacking - investigation - impeach

      "...if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it"

    9. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! The wiki article is just a collection of the same unsubstantiated BS that the MSM has been slinging around for the past 6 months. "Intelligence agencies" said so, therefore it's fact, eh pleb? The same intelligence agencies that severely discredited themselves over the past decade or so and provide proof like "the hacks happened at night, which is daytime in Moscow. Therefore... Russians!"

      But, that's not to say skullduggery didn't occur during the elections. Indeed, there were some evil actors attempting to rig it.

      Here's some hard, video evidence for ya, and admission of cheating in the debates in order to deceive voters about their candidate's diplomacy skills. But it implicates the DNC and not the Russians, so I'm sure you'll go apeshit and start frothing at the mouth, claiming it's all a conspiracy.

      Oh, and if you're going to claim the Veritas videos are doctored: Prove it or STFU.

    10. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link doesn't support your statement. Perhaps you meant to link this instead?

    11. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is evidence of election rigging.

      Party elections are the same as a school election. Technically, they don't matter to the Constitutional process because the parties "select" a representative. How that is done (badly or splendidly or unethically) is irrelevant.

    12. Re:No by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The data walked out from a US political party. Its an internal US issues, like the Pentagon papers or other released to the US media.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      "Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections"
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07... (July 27, 2016)
      ""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... (15 December 2016)
      "..at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    13. Re: No by mixed_signal · · Score: 1

      You need to read the primary sources on this, as you are just repeating incorrect right/alt-right talking points. Sanders was in no way blocked from state primaries. The DNC does not run the primaries; the states do, and Sanders did fine. HRC was not given debate questions. There was a town hall where she was given a heads up that some topic might come up, this was pretty obvious, not at all a presidential debate. Finally, just because some DNC staffers chatted through email about things they might like to try, they did not act on this and in fact they cited the DNC chair's guidelines to each other that they could not do these things.

  24. Is Russia Conducting A Social Media War On America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Russia Conducting A Social Media War On America? The answer is almost always no to a headline that ends with a question mark! Tim S.

  25. They learned it from the USA by deodiaus2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After 9/11, I was listening to a interview with Rudy Giuliani. He made a joke, that while as some other countries might have the best engineers, America has the best Madison Avenue. He was referring to the propaganda pipeline, and how the US worked hard to make itself hear around the world and exerts its influence globally.
    I remember hearing [re-]broadcasts by Ronald Reagan via "Voice of America" broadcast into Afghanistan in the 1970's. He went off the deep end and talked about how there are plenty of jobs for Afghan defectors. This was such bullshit, as there were lots of unemployed Americans, so I just didn't understand how shit like this would be believed (by the East). Apparently, it was reasonably successful, for the amount of descent it would cause. Similarly, most of the strikes in Gdansk Poland were strongly influenced by the US, with the help of the catholic church. All sorts of nonsense was promised to the workers in the shipyards, most ironically, that they would get Western wages if they broke away from the Eastern block. After the bankruptcy of the Gdansk shipyards and the fall of the Soviet Union, "Johnson and Johnson" negotiated purchasing the shipyards. The workers were getting around $.25/hour before the changes and managed to get $.50 /hr, but with the changes in the economy, prices skyrocketed because the economy was opened up to the West (shook capitalism, it was called). Probably the biggest source of propaganda came during the 2007 TARP. If the American people did not bail out the banks who had been holding CMOs, the economy would be devastated. All the wrong people would have the money, so the richest 1% had to work hard to maintain the status quo.

    1. Re:They learned it from the USA by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Sad how this is rated.
      Score: -1, does not fit with my worldview

    2. Re:They learned it from the USA by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably the biggest source of propaganda came during the 2007 TARP. If the American people did not bail out the banks who had been holding CMOs, the economy would be devastated.

      This one really gets my goat. The big banks got off so easy at the expense of taxpayers. Then they lobbied so successfully for Dodd-Frank that it became a present wrapped for them in a bow.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:They learned it from the USA by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I think Russian Hackerz got together and downmodded your excellent post.

    4. Re:They learned it from the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah.
      Score -1, Parasite

    5. Re:They learned it from the USA by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Of course it was the same fools who didn't see the crash coming that suddenly became experts and began dishing out lectures about how we had to bail out the banks.

      The extreme absurdity of all this, in my case:

      I was literally laughed at for years leading up to 2008 when I would tell people that the housing market was a bubble. I had to endure several lectures by my literal communist and socialist cousin in-law and cousin, why I should buy a house.

      The next time I saw these Marxists, after the crash, they started in with the "why we must bail out the banks..." garbage. I could have slapped them.

      I haven't seen them since. They are almost singularly responsible (long before 2008) for making me become anti-political/statist, and anti-Marxist.

  26. More unlikely to have Russian soldier in Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More unlikely to have Russian soldier in Ukraine https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10635335&cid=54455521/ & you're being obtuse: That's not my point!

    (My point is how EASY it would be to APPEAR to be a Russian via proxies or even remote server rentals).

    * You're BETTER/SMARTER than that...

    APK

    P.S.=> So don't "play dumb" trying to convey this BLATANTLY UTTERLY FALSE NARRATIVE WITH NO PROOF BEHIND IT NO LESS, or, to try "spin" my point into something it's not... apk

  27. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Russian operatives reportedly bragged that they could use Mike Flynn to get to the White House" - Yeah the CIA sure cooked that up, right? Moron.

  28. Yes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculously well documented by our Intelligence Community. Yes. Yes they are. What the hell is wrong with our media that they can't just report facts anymore without questioning them. If I got shot and read about it in the paper the headline would probably be "Are balls of lead waging a war on rsilvergun?".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding of the 4th estate is its their job to do just that. thanks for making 'murka great agin.

    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's a massive amount of evidence of [insert boogeyman] running propaganda farms pushing specific message over the internet. Elections are propaganda campaigns.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is well asserted by the US Intelligence Community. I believe it is true, as well... but the IC hasn't come out with evidence. And that's the way it SHOULD be - no one should use the IC as a tool in a domestic political debate.

    4. Re:Yes by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Can you link one of those articles, then? That has actual screenshots of Russian accounts spreading disinformation?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  29. The answer, no.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sore loser democrats are still sore losers. They won't stop whining until we give them the rattle. And the way they are acting will only help the republicans in '18 and '20.

  30. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by doom · · Score: 2

    "Occam's Razor says it's not 'The Russians.'

    Occam's Razor says you don't understand Occam's Razor very well: RAZING_CONSPIRACY

    What you're actually making is a plausibility argument based on a (dubious) claim that Russia's resources are too limited to have any effect in this realm.

    If you wanted to make the point that multiple different player's are out there astroturfing as web surfers-- including, for example, Hillary's Brock puppets who were such a joy to deal with during the Democratic primary-- you would certainly be correct.

  31. Beating the drums of war by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    There is a faction on the US government that is super enthusiastic for a war with Russia. I have no idea what they think they're going to accomplish but this is just the latest development. They keep painting Russia as this malevolent force that's behind every rock and tree. It's like the Simpsons' Maude Flanders: "Won't someone think of the children!" I think part of it is trying to distract from the obvious issues that Western elites are corrupt and do NOT have our best interests at heart.

    Just think: if they weren't engaged in skullduggery, the Russians would have nothing. The screeching over Hillary was excruciating. Instead of addressing the issues, the solution was to make accusations. A Clinton win would have been pretty disastrous for the world, and I believe we would have probably seen a war between Russia and the US during her term. The US and Russia are already fighting a proxy war in Syria, and you only have to look at Clinton's rhetoric in the lead up to the election (no-fly zones over Syria, Russians are hacking US infrastructure, cyber attacks on infrastructure are grounds for going to war etc), and look at the fact that she was receiving public and financial support from various war-mongering neocons to realize that things were not looking good. I don't know how Trump will end up, but at least the people and companies who stood to make the most money from war were not supporting him - and in fact were actively opposed to him.

    Russia has a terrible position. They are outnumbered 3:1 by the Europeans alone, without any help from the US. They are ringed by US bases. They have a huge border to defend. Russia is a paper tiger. Think about who's telling you they're a huge threat: what do they have to gain? Remember the mainstream media can't be trusted, they have an agenda and during the election they abandoned their role as truth-tellers. We all saw it. That's a bigger threat to our democracy than any foreign enemy. And what do you do when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Blame the foreigners. It's a solution as old as the hills.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re: Beating the drums of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, we should be like you, in service to our new masters, the mighty Oligarchy.

    2. Re: Beating the drums of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dipshit, he is actually pointing out the exact opposite that you are commenting on. Let me guess, you were the mod -1 on the poster?

    3. Re: Beating the drums of war by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, we should be like you, in service to our new masters, the mighty Oligarchy.

      I hate to break it to you but if you think Clinton wasn't a full time servant of the mighty Oligarchy then you weren't paying attention. Bernie might have been different but we'll never know sadly.

  32. Russia isn't necessary by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    The administrations of recent history are doing a fine job of undermining democracy all on their own.

  33. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    the far left liberal progressives right here in the USA is who i would bet it is

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  34. America is conducting A Social Media War on itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry the MSM has basically zero credibility since the 2nd Iraq war. Recently they pretty much lost it after Trump election; they may as well call the news reporter as news story-teller.

  35. Consensus government by DrYak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stop treating government as a sporting contest where you cheer for your team to crush the other team.

    Some countries like Switzerland have not a single head of executive, but a council of 7 people.

    It the same was practiced in your country, that would lead to totally different campaigns.
    It would be very difficult for the candidate of one or the other of your bipartite system, to spend time arguing that the other is "an incompetent idiot", because with such system, they are guaranteed to then later have to work together reaching a consensus.

    Hard to crush a team, when all the team *must in practice* work together.

    The only big suspense would be who out of the minor parties are going to get the last of the coucil seats.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Consensus government by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Switzerland is smaller and has less economic clout than some counties in the US. This sort of thing doesn't scale.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe an honest, working government that actually looks out for its citizens simply can't scale? Maybe the solution is more, smaller countries instead of these lumbering, zombie behemoths.

    3. Re: Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, vastly reduced Federal powers on the big behemoth. Devolve power to smaller bodies as the founders envisioned.

    4. Re: Consensus government by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      You mean like a confederation?

    5. Re:Consensus government by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Switzerland is smaller and has less economic clout than some counties in the US. This sort of thing doesn't scale.

      Don't exaggerate, Switzerland is the size of an average US state. But yes, it wouldn't work in the US on federal level.

    6. Re:Consensus government by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Switzerland is the size of one large US city.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Consensus government by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. And if somebody is really not a team-player, because they do not have the personal maturity for it (Blocher), then that person will be removed again. The others often serve for decades and if they make a mess, chances are they will have to clean it up themselves. As a result, when the Swiss have votes every three months on things, including almost all laws, there is actual information being disseminated and the government has one recommendation that all 7 Bundesraete support, despite being comprised of several different parties. And they actually give rational arguments for that recommendation (in most cases).

      Of course, even this can be subverted. For example, the Swiss recently voted themselves the beginnings of a surveillance-state without any good rational reason, just the usual fear-driven nonsense. But they can get rid of that again even against the government if they so chose, and this subversion is much harder to achieve than in other systems. And quite often those in power do not get what they want, especially if it costs a lot of money with no real gain.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re: Consensus government by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong
      Article 1 S 8,paragraphs 8-16 are ALL about making a Congress with supreme powers over the states!

    9. Re:Consensus government by gweihir · · Score: 5, Informative

      Switzerland has a GDP of around $650B. There are only 6 _states_ in the US that have more and only 3 states have more than double that. Now, I did not fund a list of US GDP by country, but unless, for example, California manages to have about 25% of its total GDP in only one county, your numbers are complete bullshit.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re: Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks. We don't need a government run be Greens and transvestites.

    11. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GDP of Los Angeles metro area was $930 billion in 2015, with the GDP of the county being around $700 billion, so there you go.

      The New York City metro GDP is $1.6 trillion, but each borough is its own county so the counties have smaller GDP, even if they're abnormally small.

    12. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LA County:

      With nearly $544 billion in annual output, Los Angeles County ranks among the world’s largest economies.

      Source.

      Switzerland:

      GDP $482.3 billion

      Source.

      There is no sources on Gweihir's post. But he did use the phrase "your numbers are complete bullshit". There are two sources in this post. Which one is more trustworthy?

    13. Re:Consensus government by Gussington · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Switzerland has a GDP of around $650B. There are only 6 _states_ in the US that have more and only 3 states have more than double that. Now, I did not fund a list of US GDP by country, but unless, for example, California manages to have about 25% of its total GDP in only one county, your numbers are complete bullshit.

      The funny part is if you wanted to take the county or state comparison all the way, then a good chunk of the US would be considered third world.
      Actually that's not funny at all, it's really quite sad...

    14. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our 2-party system for 50 different states, each with different needs, has been working?

    15. Re:Consensus government by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      We're proving that ignorance, greed, and bias doesn't scale.

    16. Re:Consensus government by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Also only 12 states have higher populations.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    17. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've lived in many countries around the world, a dozen states and have been to about 47 of them and nowhere is the US like any third world country.The poorest places are the Indian reservations and every who wants it has internet, cable tv, clean water, sanitation, electricity and food (to an excess). They also have access to free healthcare, at least in the states I've been to. A friend with no money recently had her gall bladder removed and a week in the hospital free of charge and a dozen or so follow up visits.

    18. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland is smaller and has less economic clout than some counties in the US. This sort of thing doesn't scale.

      Do you have any theory regarding why it doesn't scale or is it just a hunch you have?

      You shouldn't disregard other ideas when Trump clearly showed that the system in the US has some major flaws.

    19. Re:Consensus government by Kirth · · Score: 1

      This sort of thing doesn't scale.
      [citation needed]

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    20. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some countries like Switzerland have not a single head of executive, but a council of 7 people.

      It the same was practiced in your country, that would lead to totally different campaigns.

      They're also the rape capital of Europe thanks to their unhinged policy of immigration. I'd rather not see that duplicated anywhere else.

    21. Re:Consensus government by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Because as the number of participants in a discussion scales linearly the number of communication paths scales quadratically?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one that is more critical of the US or more praising of Europe is always the correct post. Are you new here?

    23. Re: Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland not Sweden. The swizz have very tough imigration rules. On top of that what is considered rape in Sweden won't even be sexual harassment in most countries.

    24. Re: Consensus government by GPTurismo · · Score: 1

      Read history. First 13 years of the US was a confederacy. Look how that turned out.

    25. Re:Consensus government by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The posting said "counties". Unless you find a second one, it is still bullshit. And even if you do, it is still lying by misdirection, because LA is in no way a typical or representative "county". Shame on you!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    26. Re:Consensus government by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is. I completely agree. For a country with so much potential to have so many poor people is disgraceful.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    27. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's quite sad is that you believe it just because you wish that it was true. Bigot.

    28. Re:Consensus government by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Given the increasingly obvious conclusion that government doesn't scale well, perhaps the US should be broken up into a number of independent governments of a more effective size. Fifty seems like a pretty good number, and we already have fifty states

      It's an idea. It sounds a little far out, but worth considering.

      I suppose there might still be an ongoing need for some limited amount of coordination between the states. Defense against invasion from other countries, for instance. How might that coordination be described, and of what would that uniting coordination be constituted?

      How about documenting what constitutes that coordination in a single document? A document that is subject to change when the situation clearly warrants it, but is otherwise stable over time?

      But what would you call it?

      How about the Constitution of the United States of America?

      It's an idea. It sounds a little far out, but worth considering.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    29. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Switzerland has a GDP of around $650B. There are only 6 _states_ in the US that have more and only 3 states have more than double that. Now, I did not fund a list of US GDP by country, but unless, for example, California manages to have about 25% of its total GDP in only one county, your numbers are complete bullshit.

      The funny part is if you wanted to take the county or state comparison all the way, then a good chunk of the US would be considered third world.
      Actually that's not funny at all, it's really quite sad...

      GDP per capita of Mississippi (50th in US): ~35k
      France: ~38k
      Italy: ~30k

      Guess it depends on where you draw the line.

    30. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it is true most of the US is like a third world country - and those are the same folks that voted for our exalted President-for-life Trump...

    31. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't exaggerating.
      In land area, San Bernardino County in California is larger by about 5000 square miles.
      And right next door to it is LA county which is physically smaller but has about a million more in population.

    32. Re: Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making a great argument for keeping government small. California is a basket-case, democracy is breaking down, lawlessness and corruption pervades, and it can't protect its borders. Compare that with Switzerland and it looks like California should be broken up into smaller states for the sake of the people.

    33. Re:Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is indeed quite sad that someone thinks 'third world' has anything to do with GDP.

    34. Re: Consensus government by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think thr Swiss Confereration can protect its borders? i just walked over it without any hassle a few times in the last week, far from any border controls. Without any Id.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    35. Re: Consensus government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you'd prefer the current government run by oil executives and religious fanatics?

    36. Re:Consensus government by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

      Don't use averages when comparing ... these are not "normally distributed values", so averages are poor measures.

      --
      "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
    37. Re:Consensus government by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      What does "size" have to do with economic clout. And he said county, the really big cities probably have more than one of those.

  36. There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Pentomino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been noticing since the election how odd it is that whenever I meet a Trump supporter, or a Hillary hater, If I bring up Russia, their nationalistic sense of American sovereignty will completely evaporate. To a person, they deflect concern about Russian hacking or Putin's oligarchy with such skill as if they've attended an 8-week media training course. They'll claim the Russians did us a favor by exposing Democratic corruption, and even shed a tear for the plight of the Russian people suffering under Obama's sanctions.

    When I meet someone who says they "don't support Trump" but somehow only attacks liberals, I can just imagine the Facebook group that got their hooks in them. I keep seeing groups for political causes that used to have their own identities, but now only post pro-Trump or anti-liberal messages. "Being Libertarian" had a perfect example – libertarianism is diametrically opposed from authoritarianism, and yet it showed up in my feed because a friend of mine clicked "Like" on a picture of a parody of that one poem. It said "They came for the socialists, and I said nothing. Then everything was better and they stopped coming for people." Thousands of likes, each one from someone who labels themselves "libertarian" but totally signed off on the rounding-up of their political enemies, and declared their trust that strongman authority only takes away rights temporarily.

    And that's what is worrying, because even if Trump gets impeached, the national psyche is already gravely wounded, and the Kremlin has a fresh truckload of salt for us every day to stop it from healing.

    1. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like you have been gravely wounded that you now realize that not all people think the same way and some do not share your opinion. In other words you are basically saying that since their opinion differs from yours, they must be mentally unstable or being influenced by some deranged cult on social media.

      My suggestion, get over it. The sooner you accept that not everyone believes in the same ideals as you, the better off you will be. Move on. Keep believing in what you think it right. Who gives a rat's ass what others think of your opinion.

    2. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Being old it is horrifying to see how little people know of Putin, Russian, and their history, while they cheer for their strongman to do it here.

    3. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, the Russians are just doing the same thing that the CIA has been doing all over the world for decades.

    4. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Now hold up a mirror and do a similar analysis of positions you do like. You do a good job deconstructing groups you don't like.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      whenever I meet a Trump supporter, or a Hillary hater, If I bring up Russia, their nationalistic sense of American sovereignty will completely evaporate.

      Putin's favorability rating among republicans has tripled since Trump announced his campaign.
      In 2015, Putin had a 12% favorability rating with republicans.
      Now it is 32%.

      Partisanship makes people stupid.

      "Being Libertarian" had a perfect example – libertarianism is diametrically opposed from authoritarianism

      "Libertarian accommodation of conservative illiberalism is how libertarianism became philosophically arbitrary anti-leftism and withered."
      Wil Wilkinson
      VP for Policy, Niskanen Center (libertarian think-tank)

    6. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook. And not only Facebook, but you are self-selecting the ones who "debate" politics and respond to polls and questionnaires. These are not the brightest people and you appear to be a part of that group. Sorry.

    7. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Russian propaganda worse than NBC propaganda? Why is it worse than NY Times propaganda?

      Remember the bullshit John McCain innuendo story in 2008? (And, yeah, fuck John McCain, but nothing comes close to justifying this crap).

      ...their nationalistic sense of American sovereignty will completely evaporate.

      Mine was gone the day Obama got reelected. I can't make common cause with people who would do that. And things have only gotten worse since, with no hint that Obama voters and Obama supporters would ever even consider treating the rest of the country respectfully.

      They'll claim the Russians did us a favor by exposing Democratic corruption

      You would have preferred such corruption be allowed to continue in secret?

      You want people to reject Russian propaganda? Give them something good instead. All we get now is media that hates us, propagandizing in favor of a bureaucracy that hates us, at the behest of rich coastal elites who hate us. If it's that or Putin, why not choose Putin?

    8. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, there was never any actual evidence of Russian hacking. It's literally been nothing but innuendo from the start, same as with the Trump/Russia connection.

      And FYI liberals, if you remove Trump from office, there will be civil war (I will not participate, nor do I encourage it, it is just a very obvious fact), and your side doesn't have any guns. Might want to think about that.

    9. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being old, you are fully indoctrinated by the geriatric media, which is under the complete and total control of the deep state. If you had had the internet growing up, you might have had a chance.

    10. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't get impeached. Get over it he won. My god you people disgust me.

    11. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, there was never any actual evidence of Russian hacking.

      Look dude, even President ManBaby himself said the information he's seen convinced him.
      The one guy with the most reason to deny the russians hacked the Clinton campaign and the most access to any proof otherwise has said he thinks the Russians did it.

      Trump: "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia"

      The claim by Trump follows incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus stating on Fox News that he thinks Trump “accepts the finding. He’s not denying entities in Russia are behind these particular hackings.”

             

    12. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being old, you are fully indoctrinated by the geriatric media, which is under the complete and total control of the deep state. If you had had the internet growing up, you might have had a chance.

      Indeed. If he was like you, he would be fully indoctrinated by the foxbreitwars derpstate.

    13. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't get impeached. Get over it he won.

      Winning is the first step of getting impeached.
      Duh!

    14. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this time comes, we will teach you about the three boxes that the patriots use to defend our democracy.
      Silent Globalist coup will not be tolerated.
      Oh, and the forth box will be for your bones, buried some place where chickens can shit all over it.

    15. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you going on about?
      Impeachment isn't silent, it takes 50% of the house of reps and 67 votes in the senate
      Where were you and your boxes when clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob?

    16. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine was gone the day Obama got reelected. I can't make common cause with people who would do that.

      I know what you mean!
      Those fuckers elected a niger.
      A foreign-born muslim niger who never had a father.
      What kind of example is that to set for america?

    17. Re: There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      Even if Russia is trolling us, we were a damaged society before that happened. We had a gaping wound as a nation, but people are quick to point out the gangrene as the reason we are dying. No, the hole in our chest is why we are dying.

    18. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by PGaries · · Score: 1

      libertarianism is diametrically opposed from authoritarianism

      "Libertarianism" is just an American euphemism for "plutocracy" (i.e., rule by the rich) which is, of course, an authoritarian system. Libertarians support a paradoxical system of every-man-for-himself anarchy in which those who control the most wealth will inevitably end up controlling everything.

    19. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      "who labels themselves "libertarian" but totally signed off on the rounding-up of their political enemies, and declared their trust that strongman authority only takes away rights temporarily"

      Classic misrepresentation of libertarianism. There are also real libertarians who criticize all authoritarianism and political deception, and worship no political "saviors."

    20. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      And yet these twits get upvoted. And still don't understand why Trump won. Then criticize the idiot for what isn't even real, ignoring his actual, growing list of serious fuckups.

    21. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won't be impeached, he will be re-elected. Russia is an ally that we need to defeat Communist China and North Korea.

    22. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, poor you. Maybe next time don't derail one of your own party's primary candidates and then go and murder the guy who leaks the emails. Nobody cares, go back under your rock.

    23. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Flynn is just another example. People think he's in some conspiracy so Russians can win the election for Donald, but the reality is he's part of a very serious problem of venality in the top echelon of military leadership. Fat Leonard is just one part of it. That's what real problems look like.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:There is no Trumpism without Putinism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American libertarianism is only slightly less authoritarian than conservatism. Ask any ex-libertarian (like myself!) and that is typically the reason we left the party and moved to left libertarianism.

  37. Re:No, but the media would surely have you believe by Imrik · · Score: 1

    They occasionally work in our best interests, only by coincidence when it happens to align with their own interests, but it does happen.

  38. The answer is... by barcarolle · · Score: 1

    ...no. No, they are not.

  39. Robert Merce also implicated in UK by Martin+S. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many shadowy parties are reported to be involved in this sort of thing, another is American Billionaire Robert Merce who has also been implicated in unlawful campaigning in the UK Referendum and General Elections, illegally under UK election regulations.

    https://www.theguardian.com/te...

    1. Re:Robert Merce also implicated in UK by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The worst of it is on K street, where the people who actually win don't care who won the election. They donate to both sides.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Robert Merce also implicated in UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also check out Byline Media; they've just covered this story (in their Snowman series) and have passed on all relevant information to the authorities in the US, UK and EU. Whether there's a will to investigate is another matter entirely, but the thought of another nation state interfering in the democratic process, however flawed it is, is disturbing and raises the question of "why?".

  40. Social media war? by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    You mean like the troll army over at Correct the Record?

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  41. Is America conducting a MSM war on Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

    Computer hacked the election? Putin did it!
    Chemical gassed Syrian babies? Putin.
    Infected everyone with that internet worm? Fucking Putin.

    1. Re:Is America conducting a MSM war on Russia? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Peed in my oatmeal this morning? Yes! Fucking Putin!

      Killed my dog? Putin again!

      Stole those apples off Jones' trees last Saturday? Putin's agents!

  42. Cool! Russia is at last social superpower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclaimer: Born in USSR / Russia.

    My mind was totally blown off by reading the TIME article. If what is claimed is true, Russia at last achieved something in the social sphere after centuries of failings. I also liked mentioning of "US-trained". Yes, Russia, it seems, borrowed a lot of foreign affairs tactics from States. Propaganda is used by both governments, to whatever good or bad goals, so I wonder why so much surprise?

    But now those series of scandals make me believe the whatever influence Russia may have tried (and I do not believe USA did not ever try to influence Russian internal affairs), it's the out of proportions multiplication of that effort should make people and politicians refactor the system. If Russia from afar can do that, then how much can be done from inside?

    And I do not believe Russian soldier from Ukraine can mimicry as an American housewife: unrelated to the question whether there are Russian soldiers there, their English would be most probably insufficient for that.

    Yes, democracy is the best form of government we know... Can Silicon Valley come up with a better one?

    It's pity big countries are involved in mirroring each other actions instead of solving global problems, which (in the end of the day... err, century) imho reflect their true interests, or at least, interests of their people.

  43. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia is about as Socialist as North Korean is a Democratic Republic and America is a Democracy.

  44. America doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I think 'United States of America' is a meaningful term.

    To me "America" is just this nonsense and pretentious word that otherwise would just come to mean "our country" (for whoever lives in USA).

    America as a trademark is dead to me.

  45. Re:More unlikely to have Russian soldier in Ukrain by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It is a point worth considering: if Russia were setting up an astroturfing campaign, would it be easier to do from a comfortable office building in Moscow, or from a wart-torn battleground in Ukraine?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  46. Nyet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, No, this is ridiculous. It's just that culture in the US is changing. The alt-right are friends with mother Russia. Everybody loves Putin, he has the highest approval ratings.

  47. Re: The worst part, Republicans don't mind being r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people like you type "Republican" you mean your comicbook style parody, not real people.

    Your ignorance is very disappointing.

  48. Time magazine's new low... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Russian MILF's want to fuck you right now!"

  49. Re: The worst part, Republicans don't mind being r by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know anyone like me. I've voted Republican and Democrat and Independent depending on the particular merits my whole life. And lately there are zero merits to the GOP platform. Face facts or die on their point.

    I'm sorry you see treason and selling out as all you've got left.

  50. Yes, and they won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes they are. And yes, they won. Get over it.

    They didn't win just on fake news and all that alt-whatever bs. They won because Americans are gullible. And stupid. Mostly gullible. And stupid.

    I'm glad they won. Puts fucktarded white americans in their place.

    Ignorace can only be excused to a point. After that, it's intentional. I hope the world blows up. Maybe we'll get it right/better the third/fourth time round.

    1. Re:Yes, and they won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke that our education system has become was designed to make the US Citizens easier to rule. Congratulations, it worked.

  51. Nothing about the USSR was socialist by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they were a dictatorship that borrowed socialist rhetoric to excuse their excesses. I know, I know, No True Scottsman and all that rot. But did you stop to think that people can, in fact, misrepresent their intentions? Here's another crazy thought: They can outright lie.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Nothing about the USSR was socialist by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Alternatively: Socialism/Communism/Marxism concentrates too much power, that power corrupts whoever is in charge.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Nothing about the USSR was socialist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately: Capitalism concentrates too much money, that money corrupts whoever is in charge

    3. Re:Nothing about the USSR was socialist by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never as concentrated as under socialism...not Standard Oil, not Carnegie Steel. None can touch the % of GDP controlled by marxist government. None can corrupt as quickly and certainly as marxist government.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  52. Yes by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is perfectly sane because there's a massive amount of evidence of Russia running propaganda farms pushing specific messages over the internet. Our intelligence community has come right out and said they're doing this. None of this is unsubstantiated. Spend 20 minutes on google and you can prove that to yourself. There are tons of meticulously sourced articles about it.

    Also, you're straw manning. We're not discussing vote rigging or coercion, we're discussing propaganda campaigns.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  53. They didn't learn it from anyone by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    this kind of propaganda's been around since Hilter & Co. And they didn't invent it because they were geniuses, it was just because that was right around the time mass media of the kind we have today came into existence.

    The Mega Corps own all of big media. There's a few little guys running off Youtube but they can be shut down anytime Google (another Mega Corp) wants.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They didn't learn it from anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Previous generations did this through the "media" of the printing press. Go back far enough and you'll find that the first form of that was religious texts. Go back before that, and the stories of the lyre (no coincidence that it sounds like liar). Stories around camp fires and so on. Go back even further and you'll find it's been happening for at least 30,000 years. That we can prove.

  54. c'mon by superwiz · · Score: 1

    it's pretty easy to check shibboleth. you can study a culture all you want, but if you don't live it, you won't know it. For example, you can see every Hollywood movie you want, but if you try to sound like jersey based on Kevin Smith's movies, you'll sound like you are off your rocker. I suppose the slashdot editors failed the shibboleth right there. They mistook Time magazine for a news source. Oh, and before anyone tries to defend them, do tell why subverting resources of the Democratic party to favor one primary candidate over another, all the while claiming to follow the will of the primary voters, was not newsworthy? Because that's exactly what the Clinton emails revealed. And if it was newsworthy, then why was referencing this information "propaganda"?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  55. Is American Government Conducting a Propaganda War by hackus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep.

    Countless times it has been shown how half the twitter followers espousing such things as open boarders, free food, health care, housing free everything (unless you are an american citizen of course) are pretty much fake.

    Accounts for Congressional members on twitter are and their followers numbers probably fake too.

    I mean have you watched the news lately? You know, there are other things more important going on right now than trying to remove a individual from office because the oligarchs don't like him.

    I would like to see more news coverage on what is being done in the middle east to reduce the conflict there, or how trade is working out for this country.

    I am so sick and tired of the new programs airing nothing but Dump Trump crapola 24/7.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  56. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Key word: Reportedly.

    Ever notice how these accusations of Russian interference mention "top intelligence officials" and other anonymous, impossible-to-verify sources? No actual job titles are given, much less a name, and never any actual proof of the act other than a claim.

    "We're from the department of Three Letter Acronyms. I know we've been spying on you and breaking the law, violating our own constitution, and lying to you about it for decades, but you should trust us NOW when we say 'the Russians did it!'"

    Suuuure...

  57. the irony of foreign influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The irony of Kissinger friend Hillary losing an election and blaming a foreign intelligence service is not lost on my friends from South America. The Hillary cult framing of "hacked the election" implies to main street America that teenage Boris Badenoff actually changed vote totals whereas what's actually alleged is social media targeting. I'm no Trump fan, he's a preposterously incompetent corrupt idiot as anyone in the New York building trades has known for decades and the country is now learning, and voted against him in the general election but Hillary was (is?) a preposterously corrupt slimy speaking corporate lawyer who happens to be very competent. That she and her staff were so arrogant that they lost that won election is hubris defined for the ages. That they now blame Comey, Putin, Bernie, sexism and are ready to smear Clinton-politics-as-usual large portions of their own party to position her for Hillary 2020 "She Persists!"(tm I, anonymous coward, want royalties on that) is lust for power spelled large.

    No I supported him but not a big Bernie fan. One speech with as many details as a leaflet for a new takeout joint. Compared to Trump he was Ike and FDR combined but then so is just about anyone reading a slashdot thread.

    The electorate is too fat and lazy to pay attention and so we get Trump / Hillary / Obama / Bush etc ...

    1. Re:the irony of foreign influence by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      One of the most positive outcomes of the Trump victory in the 2016 election will be if it finally drives a wooden staken through the hearts of the Clinton and the Bush dynasties. They are still fighting for their undeath, though, so we will see.

  58. the ass in dumbass by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Crimea invasion and now this?

    Russia already had a base in Crimea. If that's an invasion, then the U.S. invades Japan/Germany/England/Saudi Arabia each and every time it moves troops through its bases in those countries.

    And....its the U.S. that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. Not Russia. In some alternate universe where Putin extended the Warsaw Pact to surround the United States and then overthrew the government of Canada, you wouldn't be throwing stones if the U.S. let Ontario join it by democratic vote.

    1. Re: the ass in dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, claims the government of Ukraine was overthrown.

      Dismisses the occupation of Ukraine by Russian Army units.

      Pretends there was anything except a couple in the Crimea.

      I smell a lot of Borscht.

    2. Re: the ass in dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, 95% Russian speaking Crimea held a referendum after there was a coup against the elected government by literal Nazis, who then proceeded to threaten to commit genocide against Russian speakers.

      Putin is such an ebbil guy, fighting Nazis like that!

    3. Re:the ass in dumbass by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Nobody really believes that riscible Russian bullshit.

      Yanukovic was about to sign an EU association agreement. Putin had an autistic freakout and decided to go full on the attack against the EU, and threatened Yanukovic to drop the association agreement. THAT was what prompted the street-level explosion -- the people wanted European norms, not Russian-style lawnessness and corruption.

      Putin LOATHES the EU, because it's a threat of a good example. It's the dream of something better than squalid corruption and legal nihilism. That's why according to Putin, the EU has to die, and why human shit like Le Pen and Farage, who'll sell out to the highest bidder, also hate the EU; because they're paid by Russia to sabotage it.

    4. Re:the ass in dumbass by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      European money is what keeps Russia afloat, they can't afford to kill the EU. The USA is running a "Contain and Smother" campaign to destroy Russia and Putin is responding in the Ukraine just like he did in Georgia except using a mercenary army instead of the Russian Army for the fighting.

    5. Re:the ass in dumbass by benjfowler · · Score: 0

      The West wouldn't be "containing" Russia if they didn't think that Russian revanishism and imperialism weren't a threat. Russia started this, the West will finish it. Again.

    6. Re:the ass in dumbass by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Nobody really believes that riscible Russian bullshit.

      Reality has a well known anti-American Exceptionalist bias. Why you sociopathic imperialists keep pretending otherwise is a mystery, as the Assistant Secretary of State is on video bragging about the $5 billion spent to undermine Ukrainian democracy - and then Americans have the chutzpah to whine about Russian interference in our elections last year. She's also recorded picking post-coup leaders - and yeah it was a coup as the parliamentary vote didn't have the votes needed to remove Yanukovych from power.

      Yanukovic was about to sign an EU association agreement. Putin had an autistic freakout and decided to go full on the attack against the EU, and threatened Yanukovic to drop the association agreement. THAT was what prompted the street-level explosion -- the people wanted European norms, not Russian-style lawnessness and corruption.

      Get the fuck outta here with that revisionist nazi bullshit. The pro-west capitalist faction wanted to sign for an IMF loan with it's usual austerity-crushing measures that forces the state to sell off public services and infrastructure for pennies on the dollar. Which is exactly why the capitalists wanted it - so they could privatize industries and start rent-seeking the citizens to death, same as what happens here in the U.S..

      In response, Putin did the despicable, unconscionable action of - giving Ukraine a simple, low interest loan with no onerous conditions, along with a cheap deal on gas. The peeved Right Sector, unable to win at the ballot box, then started a coup with assistance from the United States. That's what happened in Ukraine. Which means that if Putin did a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it would be infinitely more justified than any American war you can name. It's not like the United States would sit with its thumb up its ass if Russia overthrew the government of Canada, after encircling the U.S. with Warsaw Pact countries (after promising not to).

    7. Re:the ass in dumbass by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      The West wouldn't be "containing" Russia if they didn't think that Russian revanishism and imperialism weren't a threat. Russia started this, the West will finish it. Again.

      So not only do you have the ass in dumbass, you've got the d in dumbfuck! Russia's military spending is a fraction of NATO's, and they just cut it by 30%. NATO has dramatically expanded after the fall of the Warsaw Pact - breaking a promise Bush made to Gorbachev. It's not Russia spending a trillion dollars to upgrade its nuclear arsenal while encircling the U.S. with anti-missile systems. And it's not Russia that's deployed the largest amounts of troops to eastern europe since WWII, practicing "war games".

      As is usually the case, you take the American Exceptionalist storyline, invert it, and you have reality. It's not the EU defending itself from Russian aggression. It's Russia defending itself from NATO and U.S. aggression.

    8. Re:the ass in dumbass by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      We didn't promise you jack shit. Nothing was written.

      Countries near Russia joined NATO and the West because they were sick of Russia's imperialism, exploitation and corruption.

      The "encirclement" narrative is bullshit. When WW3 starts, it's not coming from Poland, it's coming at you at Mach 20 over the North Pole, or over the Internet. 2D maps and bullshit Russian lies about being "encircled" make no sense when the battlefield is 3D, in outer space, information, cyber etc.

      Russia likes to pretend it's a great power, equal to the United States. It's actually a corrupt, hollow shell of a country with an economy smaller than Italy's. Putin's vain, arrogant demand that Russia be treated as an "equal" to the United States is riscible garbage, which is rightly regarded with distain and ridicule in Western policy circles.

    9. Re:the ass in dumbass by benjfowler · · Score: 0

      You got me at "Ukrainian democracy", lol.

      If you Russians are so fucking wonderful, why is your economy smaller than Italy's?

      That's right -- your country is so unreformably shit and backwards, that you've given up, and now, in a fit of racist anti-Western rage, you have to tear us down to make your rotten system look better than yours.

      Well -- newsflash -- we're onto your hacking and subversion and your political games. You won't win. The West will smack you down, again and again, until you learn your lesson, and join the civilized world. If that takes large-scale war, then so be it. We defeated Hitler, we'll defeat Putin too.

    10. Re:the ass in dumbass by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      We didn't promise you jack shit. Nothing was written.

      You are either dumb or ignorant, probably both. There used to be a treaty that very specifically - down to a precise amount of tanks, helicopters, artillery and so on - limited the size of conventional forces in Europe. The NATO expansion quickly broke that treaty and several of the new NATO countries refused to sign it, making the treaty moot because the excess could just be parked in these countries, right at the Russian border. Russia fruitlessly complained about it, then gave up and suspended the treaty in 2007.

      2D maps and bullshit Russian lies about being "encircled" make no sense when the battlefield is 3D, in outer space, information, cyber etc.

      Once again, dumb, ignorant, or both. Russia has been invaded by Western forces several times. It is not surprising that they feel being encircled, especially given the size of their border. Cyberwar only kills people in mediocre science fiction, in real life bullets and bombs do.

      It's actually a corrupt, hollow shell of a country with an economy smaller than Italy's.

      And Italy is one of the largest economies in the world (also very corrupt, although not quite that much). What exactly is your point?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re:the ass in dumbass by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      We didn't promise you jack shit. Nothing was written.

      So because it wasn't nailed down in a treaty, it's no big deal that Gorbachev stood by and let the Warsaw Pact disintegrate only for NATO to dramatically increase in size. Your defense of underhanded sophistry is noted.

      and the West because they were sick of Russia's imperialism, exploitation and corruption.

      Still putting the D in Dumfuck I see - and then some.

      It's not Russia that's bombing a dozen countries far away from it for bullshit reasons.
      It's not Russia that had a worldwide kidnapping & torture program.
      It's not Russia that's overthrown two democracies (just during the Obama years)
      ...and tried to overthrow another in Venezuela
      It's not Russia deploying troops to over 100 countries around the world.

      I could go on all day, dumbfucking American Exceptionalist.

      The "encirclement" narrative is bullshit.

      Did we talk about your dumbfuckery? Aside from the existing NATO bases we've continued to operate even after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, there's also the "missile shield" which has been deployed to eastern europe and bases in Asia like South Korea. Have you spoken to a doctor about your affliction with dumbfucerieze?

      Russia likes to pretend it's a great power, equal to the United States. It's actually a corrupt, hollow shell of a country with an economy smaller than Italy's. Putin's vain, arrogant demand that Russia be treated as an "equal" to the United States is riscible garbage, which is rightly regarded with distain and ridicule in Western policy circles.

      More dumbfuckery. Russia's defense budget is a fraction of NATO's, which is a fraction of the U.S. imperial budget, which is greater than the rest of the world combined. Russia isn't the arrogant imperialist threat. YOU are.

  59. That's Not the Kremlin! by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Informative
    Time probably meant to use the Kremlin, but that's not the Kremlin. That's the Cathedral of St. Basil. This is the Kremlin. This is the equivalent of a Russian reporter confusing the US Capitol with the Washington National Cathedral.

    It's worth noting that whatever Time might have intended, the error here isn't just on the part of the Slashdot summary. Just about every media outlet that mentions the Time cover calls it the Kremlin.

    This reflects a truth about the depth of the media's knowledge and understanding of Russia.

    1. Re:That's Not the Kremlin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not even the best part. In their cover picture, they've removed the crosses from the spires of the cathedral. That may have been accurate 30 years ago, when godless communism still ruled in Russia, but now?

    2. Re:That's Not the Kremlin! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In fairness, the bricks could part of the Kremlin. They are fairly close, as can be seen in this image.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:That's Not the Kremlin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not even the best part. In their cover picture, they've removed the crosses from the spires of the cathedral. That may have been accurate 30 years ago, when godless communism still ruled in Russia, but now?

      They didn't remove the crosses from the photo. They're using a 30 year old stock photo. With a bad label on it. Lazy and cheap.

    4. Re:That's Not the Kremlin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I get your point, the cathedral was probably chosen because it's actually recognisable.

      It's tough incorporating the Kremlin (building behind red wall in this picture) into pretty much anything.

      The game Civilization IV had a Wonder called 'The Kremlin' and its image was the same St. Basil, FWIW. So it's a pretty common association, even outside the news media.

    5. Re:That's Not the Kremlin! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Actually, that cover is a rip-off of a Mad Magazine cover from a few months ago:
      http://www.sfgate.com/national/article/Mad-magazine-says-Time-ripped-off-cover-idea-11159783.php

      Given that it's Mad Magazine, it's possible they intentionally mixed up the Cathedral and the Kremlin, though it's also likely they just made the same mistake everyone else does.

    6. Re:That's Not the Kremlin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're overreaching to try to make a Very Intelligent point about "the depth of the media's knowledge" that isn't so at all. TIME just wanted to put the most recognizably Russian thing in the illustration. The St. Basil's onion domes are it. But it's good you and the Examiner could have a good wank about how ignorant all the normies are.

  60. Don't get mad, get even by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Do the same back until they knock it off. Keep pointing out to Russian citizens that Putin is a slimy dictator who suppresses the press and real democracy.

    1. Re:Don't get mad, get even by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You have to be old enough to realize that both sides have been attempting to feed propaganda to each others population since the Russian revolution? Voice of America, Pravda, The Nation, Communist Party USA etc etc etc

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Don't get mad, get even by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Currently we don't do it at the scale they do.

    3. Re:Don't get mad, get even by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Debatable at best. Certainly there are more 'dumb as rocks reds' in the west then Russia now. But all that proves is how insulated from reality western liberal arts college campuses are. Says nothing about Russian involvement, which isn't ideological, just Machiavellian.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  61. We have trolls working right here in this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the problem is that it is not only America - the pattern repeats in several countries - it started with Russian minority in Ukraina and Crimea and when proven successfull - spread to Balic States, Poland, UK, France, Germany and several other places.

    One can observe posts on foras that have character dramatically different to those 3-4 years ago.

    There are many liberal media foras on which 75% of posts are anti-liberal/anti-immigrant/anti-West. Something unseen 5 years ago when 90% of posts were liberal.

    I can hear echos of these anti-liberal posts in what my younger coworkers say and I am scared - something big is going on and it reminds me 1930 Nazi or 1950 Communist propaganda.

  62. Probably ISN'T RUSSIANS @ all... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's TOO obvious - no 'hacker/cracker' OR even fake news operative of any kind would leave tracks so obvious!

    (Things like leaving russian cyrillic inside malicious executables all the way to doing the 'dirty wet work' from a RUSSIAN server for Pete's sake!)

    * I mean, seriously - they're NOT that STUPID or SLOPPY - & I, for example, can in seconds appear to be posting this from the Russias, easily... in seconds. However, I'm NOT really from the USSR etc. - I am a U.S. Citizen & am in the USA northeast...

    (It's "globalists" & their "new world order" bs as usual - they HATE Russia for bringing back the galvanizing force of religion & for shunning the EU etc.)

    APK

    P.S.=> Parties who SAY "russians did it" to just about EVERYTHING? They have no SOLID UNDENIABLE PROOF - that's WHY I don't ever listen to them - they've ADMITTED HAVING NO SOLID PROOF!... apk

  63. UNIDENTIFIABLE stalker check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UNIDENTIFIABLE truly cowardly stalker pussy-check
    Stupid HIDING BEHIND anonymous posts-check
    False claims libeling me as always-check.
    Projecting your own inadequacies onto me (Fat deluded virgin in moms basement)-check.

    * YOU PROVE YOU REALLY ARE WHAT I SAY YOU ARE - a punk loser!

    (One I've OBVIOUSLY totally CRUSHED before - hence your "courageous" (not) unidentifiable anonymous posts)

    APK

    P.S.=> The ENTIRE "russians did it" is the "conspiracy theory" - SHOW US SOLID UNDENIABLE PROOF, not easily done by proxies FALSE FLAGS just as I outlined HOW those are done!... apk

    1. Re:UNIDENTIFIABLE stalker check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahaha, suck it up princess, I never come back to read your replies, only did this time to mod.
      Again, bwahaha.

    2. Re:UNIDENTIFIABLE stalker check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit whimp.

  64. Not the Kremlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The SlashDot summary claims the cover of Time shows the White House half covered in Kremlin spires. It does not. The Time magazine cover shows the White House half covered in Saint Basil's cathedral spires. The Kremlin is the fortress-like building next door to the cathedral.

  65. End this narrow fixation on a Soviet "invasion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any faction with loose-enough morals and enough cash is/has deploying/ed sentiment-manipulation sock-puppet bots to sentiment-analyze content and either give it good reviews/positive feedback or drive-by with negative crap statements and talking-points.

    There's Kremlin bots, DNC bots, Anonymous bots, GOP bots, Mike Cernovich bots, InfoWars bots, Martha Stewart bots, ad infinitum ...

    Repeat a lie enough times, enough gullible, uneducated people watching only TV and Facebook will believe it because they have no idea what's going on or how to determine if information is reliable.

  66. We're just screwing ourselves... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    When security becomes a paradigm.. thus rises the god of fortresses (the perfection of security), which in turn becomes a prison for all of us.

  67. CIA Outlet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did Slashdot become an outlet for CIA propaganda?

  68. "undemocratic forces"?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boogey boogey boogley boo!

    hahahha

  69. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait wait wait... so what you're saying is that there was an article that said effectively that "Russian's hack things that are important"? Or that "Russian's try to influence politics in other countries"?

    They've been doing that since some idiot allowed them to connect to us. I thought this was a tech blog filled with tech people who actually, you know, have spent their entire adult life keeping Russians out of their systems..

  70. Democrats looking for a Reason by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Democrats are practically shut out of the state governments. Legislative branches and Governorships.

    The have been in the minority in the Federal Government for nearly ten years now.

    And now Hillary just got technically KO'd by a bloviating braggart (which, I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed watching.).

    So now they are struggling to figure out what happened and make sense of their current predicament. In the best tradition of politicians, they have found an scapegoat...the Russians.

    Despite allcoolnameswheretak insistence and links, there is no hard evidence of the Russians interfering with the election. Rumors, innuendo, circumstantial curiosities, but nothing more.To the extent they might have been perpetrating a Psyops, there is no evidence they've done anything that WE haven't done throughout the world currently and in the past.

    The furious panty twisting the Democrats are engaged in is merely a Psyops on the American people.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

      "The have been in the minority in the Federal Government for nearly ten years now."

      Yet ironically they don't seem to be a minority of the population...just a majority of population with systematically reduced voice in their own governance.

    2. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by sycodon · · Score: 0

      Oh, look.

      Another one who doesn't understand how a representative democracy works.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You like, you know we are fucked, right? Every cycle since has been more and more divided. The Republicans put their foot down with Obama, and ended up shutting the government down to make a political point. Now the Democrats are pretty much willing to fillibuster ANYTHING, even Gorsuch (remember, just a couple years ago, the Republicans allowed through Sotomayer and Kegan, both of them endlessly liberal with 100% Democrat support on every issue), and will continue to get worse. It doesn't matter who started it: there will never be any real bipartisanship, and there will DEFINITELY not be any multipartisanship. Some small but meaningful percent of the country thinks Donald Trump is a Russian agent. Another small but meaningful percent of the country thinks the Clintons are organized crime bosses, murderers, and slavers. I don't think we need any foreign agents to throw us to the ground, we're in a tailspin right fucking now.

    4. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

      Apparently you seem to be the one without the knowledge of how a representative democracy is SUPPOSED to work.

    5. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Can there even be a hard evidence? The word "interfere" can have many connotations, especially in context of global politics. Like strictly speaking one nation can't even do actions like that because a nation is not a single individual but rather a set of individuals all with distinct agendas.

    6. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats are practically shut out of the state governments. Legislative branches and Governorships.

      Democrats have actually been outperforming their results, demonstrating quite clearly, the level of gerrymandering involved. Not to mention the clear evidence of voter suppression on the GOP's part, and worst of all for them...their complete lack of achievement.

      The GOP has managed bupkus. Legislatively, in Congress? They spent 6 years ranting over the Affordable Care Act, but then what?

      Nothing.

      States? Oh my, they did HB2 in North Carolina. That worked well. A state where they were already under the gun of court-ordered new legislative districts because of their gross and malicious racial bias in gerrymandering.

      In the Courts? Lost their petty ACA lawsuit. Lost Same-sex marriage. Lost their voter ID lawsuits all over the place. Lost lots of others on their racial animus.

      That's right, a lot of furious shouting, and they only managed to get a turd in the White House with a technical victory that actually discredited him, not least because he was so desperate to pretend it was a landslide or a challenge, not a half-way slinking through a known fault in the sysm.

      And now they have to deal with the taint of being associated with Russian manipulation, a taint their President isn't able to dispel with his firing of FBI heads, his admiration of Putin, and his general demeanor.

      The American people aren't going to buy the GOP's own psyop to get them riled up and angry, not when suddenly, it turns out they're nothing but a bunch of windbags.

      It'll turn out well. They've already begun to suffer. Their anxiety is palpable.

    7. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats right, Americans have wised up to the liberal marxists and their self defeating ways.

    8. Re:Democrats looking for a Reason by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have systematically alienated themselves from reasonable voters by pushing identity politics, political correctness, and running/supporting garbage candidates like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. (thus reduced the number of people who would take their voices seriously)

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  71. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by ABEND · · Score: 1

    Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

    The Kremlin going up against the U.S. alphabet agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, ...) would be an incredibly expensive battle. What would be the benefit to them? It's a much easier explanation to assume an "inside job." There's certainly evidence of this with the multiple "leaks," of Trump administration activity, to the media - most notably the leak of General Flynn's private conversation with a Russian ambassador. We're pretty confident that "THE RUSSIANS" were not the source of the leak.

    --
    In all seriousness:
  72. Not News by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

    The Russians have been abusing social media and comments sections of websites for a long time now.

    Russia Targets The Blaze
    Documents Show How Russia’s Troll Army Hit America
    Russian Trolls and the US Election

    Not news; if it is to you, you haven't been paying much attention. :P

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re: Not News by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      But surely there are so many comments here insisting that there is no Russian interference in US politics that we really must believe them.

      And despite all the evidence you provide, where's the evidence? Unless you can show me video footage of Vladimir Putin signed into Facebook as Mrs Valerie Poutine of Poughkeepsie, New Mexico, a signed confession and DNA samples, we will have to conclude that these allegations are nothing but a desperate Western plot to discredit those democratically elected democrats in the Kremlin.

  73. Re: 90% of social media promotes the left-wing age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't we meet on r/totallynotrussians?

  74. Antivaxxers love Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many antivaxxers seem to adore both Trump and Putin.

    Trump may be genuinely antivax, but Putin's support is more a case of social media manipulation. The Russian vaccination schedule is very similar to those in Western nations.

    I believe the Russians are encouraging the antivaxxers so as to foster distrust of our public health and political systems.

  75. Uh, a question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone explain to me how Russia benefits if/when the US is no longer a democracy? That possibility doesn't mean we'd suddenly become Russia's ally; we could be an even worse enemy! This is almost as illogical as what we used to hear here (thankfully it stopped) that "the terrorists want us afraid so we will turn ourselves into a police state".

  76. I actually came here to comment: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the biggest threat to Democracy spreading in the world for the past 100+ years or so has in fact been U.S. intervention in the regions, where democracy was likely to lead to either unfavorable trade terms with the American backed trading partners, or a rush into socialism in part to fight back against the systemic abuses of the 'free market economy' previous offered in a region on the backs of its poor indigents.

    But hey, Rah Rah America!

    Having said that: Somebody really needs to perform the sort of leak/hack/socially engineered embarassment of Russia and China that has now happened to the U.S. It is time for the big 3 to have their respective Arab Springs, only without outside meddling, so we will hopefully end up with at least three actual democracies and a bunch of faux 'leaders' ensured they will never recieve a politcal pulpit again during our collective lifetime.

    1. Re:I actually came here to comment: by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      that the biggest threat to Democracy spreading in the world for the past 100+ years or so has in fact been U.S. intervention in the regions

      I'd like to see the analysis behind that, given that it's been fairly effective in spreading democracy.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  77. So, smart people manipulating by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    stupid/naive people. Somebody thought this could be a thing and we should be scared? No, us smarties not only dodged that bullet, we saw it coming and avoided any chance of it hitting us.

    / stupid is as stupid does
    // stupid/naive people are stupid
    /// I fucking hate how many line breaks I have to manually insert on /., instead of just a CR

  78. USA gets what it paid for by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    While I do not consider hacking and psyops as acceptable behaviors, we must admit Russia's move are perfectly reasonable reactions to USA operations in its neighbor countries.

    There was eastern Europe countries joining NATO after NATO's official enemy USSR collapsed, then colored revolutions where US people chose governments, missiles installed in Poland, tanks deployed in Baltic countries... A lot of scaring stuff that would make any country leader nervous.

  79. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    This makes sense. I still don't understand what "The Russians" or just Putin, would want to go to all this trouble for. They have plenty of economic power and specific leverage with certain countries (like China) that are suitable for trade to any end. If Russia tries a Georgian style takeover of Ukraine, things will get dicey, but it's not like these narratives or Trump would help if Putin ran tanks into Estonia (an actual NATO member).

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  80. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by doom · · Score: 1

    Occam's Razor is more like "thou shalt not multiply entities unnecessarily". Translating that to "simple is best" is an over-simplification. You might try reading the link I posted.

    Once again, you're trying to make a plausibility argument based on the scale of the potential players, but that says nothing about which player actually made which moves.

    "What would be the benefit to them?"

    Gee, I dunno, what good would it be to anyone to have a US President in their pocket? Particularly if the US had been getting snarky about their military expansion.

    And by the way, the phrase "inside job" has been contaminated by our friends the 9/11 truthers. If you don't want to sound like a conspiracy freak with a weak understanding of evidence and a weaker grasp of reality, you don't want to borrow their dog-whistles.

    I'm inclined to give the Russians-are-behind-it theory some creedence because of multiple things I've been hearing about for some time throughout the election season-- e.g. the Trump server that had been talking to Russia until he was asked about it, after which it stopped. There are also multiple ties between Trump's folks and the Russians, which you would know about if you were paying any attention to the news.

  81. President Ronald Reagan by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  82. Russian oligarchy joined the establishment by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Putin's new oligarchy have plunder Russian of its wealth. The western establishment have been eyeing up that move with gusto and are learning and applying his methods.

    The Russian troll factory in St Petersburg is very real and their methods are now being offered by commercial organisations under the label of Political Analytics. All very real and very effective.

  83. Europe as well by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    It is beyond doubt that the extreme right wing in both Europe and the US are eye up Putin's new Oligarchy and their plundering of Russian wealth for personal enrichment. They have been increasing aping his methods and approaches creating troll factories that combine human trolls with large scale botting and hacking, fake news memes. This has happened with Brexit, Trump, the rise of Le Poison Pen and in the current UK general election.

  84. No question by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    The qui bono on this pushes me more towards this kind of thing as a more realistic threat:
    https://www.theguardian.com/te...

  85. We need to pull our heads out of our collective as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe this is even a question anymore. Russia is not even trying to hide this anymore. We need to address this issue ASAP or we are done. This is not about Trump v Clinton v Obama. This is about fascism/authoritarianism v liberalism/democracy.

    Has anyone been watching our intelligence hearings????

  86. Excellent analysis of the global reach by Martin+S. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Brexit vote and the U.S. presidential election form part of Russiaâ(TM)s campaign of propaganda and disinformation to undermine and interfere in democratic processes in the Western countries.

    http://www.newsweek.com/brexit...

  87. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by ABEND · · Score: 1

    My compliments at your clever ad hominem.

    Have you reviewed John Podesta's emails at WikiLeaks?

    Date: 2015-12-21 12:09 ... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin ...

    and

    The Podesta Emails; Part One

    Is Julian Assange a "conspiracy theorist?"
    Is John Podesta not an "insider?"
    Am I using someone else's "talking points?"

    --
    In all seriousness:
  88. "United States should put stronger sanctions on th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ The United States should put stronger commerce business sanctions on Great Britain, because the addressing trade agreement violations and abuses continue, in a globalization economic crisis; Cyber-Attack and Ransomware Affair.

  89. Why is the left obsessed with Russia? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    For decades the blame-America-first leftists were Russia apologists. Now if you get a flat tire it's blamed on Russian hackers.

    IMO: lots of countries are all social media, lots of corporations as well.

    1. Re:Why is the left obsessed with Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Decades, the Always-Screaming-Right were blaming everything bad in America on the Leftists, and insisting they were friends with the Commies. Now...it turns out they were stooges of the Kremlin all along.

      IMO: The Right protests so much because they know they're guilty of the crime.

  90. No, it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but there is actually evidence that America is involved in interference in European elections. Personally, I was furious when Obama meddled publically in the UK referendum to leave the EU. This anti-Russian witch hunt makes America look totally crazy.

  91. There's a simpler way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Russians really want to undermine the United States, they should simply start an internet rumor that John Wayne was GAY!!!!!!!!!!!! That would hack away (excuse the pun) at the very foundations of American self-confidence, bringing the culture of macho down in a heap of rubble - or should that be... Ruble.

  92. To the brainwashed american cattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, there is always the possbility that the absolute majority of "Putin bots" are just people of Russian origin, furious at the racist libel which gets thrown these days from the "media" (in more correct terms, state propaganda) of the US empire (comprising also its european de facto territory). Who simply express their opinions in the comments sections of e-press - those which are relatively uncensored - and in "social media".

    And then there is the possibility that CIA is accusing Russia of precisely what they themselves do all over the world, with financial and technological means BY FAR exceeding anything that the russian hackers can even dream of (taking into account that most of Russia's bright minds emigrate to the west).

    But don't let these possibilities spoil your paranoid self indulgent "narrative"..

  93. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is no. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

    If the author of this article had proof of their assertion, they would have published it and the title would have been an affirmative statement, rather than a question.

    This is just further proof that all modern media, regardless of political stripe, now subscribes to the tabloid model. They don't publish news anymore, they publish what they think will be provocative enough to drive clicks.

  94. So What If They Are? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    There is only one purpose to articles like this, to rally people into accepting the idea that it is necessary to "regulate" all speech.

    There are only two choices:

    1. Accept that all "information" is suspect, and let people sort it out for themselves.

    2. Give up free speech altogether.

    If people are so stupid that they can't be allowed to make their own decisions about what they choose to "believe," and require information to be "regulated" to ensure that they always vote in the politically correct manner, then we might as well just get honest and stop this charade of "democracy."

    Of course there will be a civil war, and the people pushing this crap might find that they end up being "regulated" as well, straight into the gulags that they probably wish they could be controlling.

  95. Re:Is American Government Conducting a Propaganda by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    "what is being done in the middle east to reduce the conflict there" For that, ask the Russians.

    As for what is being done to increase the conflict there, just look at the Americans.

  96. FIFA WORLD CUP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are conducting this type of war. It is all in prep. for after they host the FIFA WORLD CUP. Look what they did after hosting the winter olympics....they went into Crimea. Get ready....because after the world cup, I personally bet a year of my salary that they will make a bigger move.

    Get ready Ukraine.

    GLHF.

    GEEGEE

  97. Re:90% of social media promotes the left-wing agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boring....

  98. Why no discussion re: Cambridge Analytica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why no technical discussion regarding the involvement of Cambridge Analytica's in the election? As some may know, Cambridge Analytica has connections to Mercer, Bannon and Brietbart. Too complicated for Slashdot posters?

  99. Millennials and twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's doing a twitter discussion right now for yall millennials on the topic of the Saudis. Better listen in our Russias going to spam the heck outta your account.

  100. US spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians are doing what the US has been doing to other countries. The US has for years been using social media propaganda to incite revolts, rebellions, etc. The Russians are successfully splitting the country apart by supporting the most authoritarian factions. They are smart enough to realize the more divided the country becomes with all the White nationalist rhetoric, the more likely civil war will occur. All the "Patriots" are falling for it. It is only a matter of time before the US rips itself apart. The idiots will sit around blaming multiculturalism, etc and never realize they fell for the Russian propaganda that pushed their extremist intolerance to breaking the nation.

  101. Re: The media is Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People like you are ruining everything with your ridiculous misguided blabber.

  102. Pot, kettle. The US does the same thing. by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 1

    And it does this to its own people and to Europeans and at the same scale as Russia.

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
  103. Russian Hacking Horseshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In 2016, Russia had used thousands of covert human agents and robot computer programs to spread disinformation referencing the stolen campaign emails of Hillary Clinton, amplifying their effect. Now counterintelligence officials wondered: What chaos could Moscow unleash with thousands of Twitter handles that spoke in real time with the authority of the armed forces of the United States?" The article also notes how algorithms now can identify hot-button issues and people susceptible to suggestion, so "Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior. That is what Moscow is doing, more than a dozen senior intelligence officials and others investigating Russia's influence operations tell Time."

    THIS IS TOTAL HORSESHIT.......YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES
    Dennis Morrisseau
    US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
    Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
    FIRECONGRESS.org
    Second Vermont Republic
    POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
    dmorso1@netzero.net
    802 645 9727

  104. You're in deep doo doo by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Your glorious leader clearly admires Putin and his brand of kleptocracy, his predisposition to murder annoying journalists, his power, wealth, etc. Trump of course can't emulate Putin because (1) you actually have working democratic institutions (at least for the time being) and (2) Putin is actually extremely competent where Trump is a gibbering idiot who has to have his briefings condensed to a page of bullet points and aides liberally sprinkle briefings with the word "Trump" because he scans through looking for his name and where he fails to find it, fails to pay attention.

    Putin has effectively carried out a decapitation strike on your country, you are rudderless with an idiot man child at the helm. But hey, maybe he'll make the brown people go away, so worth it right?

    The Russians are laughing their asses off at you. The sooner you put psychotic christian theocrat Pence in charge, the better for you and everyone. And imagine saying something like that a few years ago.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  105. Re:We have trolls working right here in this artic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something big is going on and it reminds me 1930 Nazi or 1950 Communist propaganda.

    We are clearly preparing for the greatest, most expensive war with Russia ever!

  106. Re:Is American Government Conducting a Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US will turn blue. Give it thirty years.

  107. Re:Is American Government Conducting a Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm, the oligarchs absolutely LOVE Trump. Their only complaint is how transparently he serves their interests, as he literally is one and has bragged about it.

  108. Re:We have trolls working right here in this artic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because your younger coworkers are realizing what a sham they've been subjected to, and don't wish to be slaves any longer :)

  109. Oh stop. by PaulMilf · · Score: 1

    Russia Conducting A Social Media War On America? Russia is host to AI who is playing America.