Slashdot Mirror
A 12-Month Campaign of Fake News To Influence Elections Costs $400K, Says Report (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bleeping Computer: A 77-page report released today by cyber-security firm Trend Micro explores the underground landscape of fake news, where anyone can buy influence and create artificial trends to serve personal interests. An examination of Chinese, Russian, Middle Eastern, and English-based underground fake news marketplaces reveals a wide range of services available on these portals. The report explores several websites where customers can purchase services ranging from "discrediting journalists" to "promoting street protests," and from "stuffing online polls" to "manipulating a decisive course of action," such as an election. According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities. Trend Micro has compiled a "fake news" price catalog in its report, which is imbedded in Bleeping Computer's article. Some of the most expensive services include $200,000 for helping to instigate a street protest via fake news articles, $50,000 to discredit a journalist, and $400,000 to influence elections.
Mr trumpy told me that this itself is a #fakenews and could never happen in soviet america!!!
This has been going on for a very long time. I first became aware of it back in the 1990s.
I only noticed because I was not in the "mainstream" of political thought and I noticed how news coverage was shaping public perception.
I can respect that these people are wrestling this power from the hands of media conglomerates and making it a commercial service.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So cheap!
When paying for influence goes on sale, does it not lessen the importance of the elite?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns.
But who hasn't marveled at the near genius of the average government school student? Achievement, discernment, and wisdom is the true hallmark of a government school education.
Fake news doesn't have a chance.
The cheaper, the easier the access. More democratic, all the way!
...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?
The journalistic system we have today is basically a self-standing set of dominoes - basically competing to generate attention-getting emotions - looking for any excuse to re-trigger their sequence. It isn't new - yellow journalism has an amazing and lengthy history, but increasingly tabloid coverage is the only news for most folks.
It's not a moralistic thing that's the problem here - it's informational vulnerability. Like folks growing up in a 'company town' or a cult, it becomes statistically likely that without a path to a wider source of information, that folks will be unable to break out of objectively wrong information and will become willing victims to pure exploitation.
Even here, lots of folks have given up on the idea of pursuing truth as a societal good. Down that path lies a deep stagnation and victimhood.
Ryan Fenton
Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
This isn't talked about, because it was in the Democrats' favor.
imbed: "Alternative spelling of embed".
I see what you did there.
deception & starvation still leading killers of us, while we regurgitate endless holycost hypenosys from madison.ave.gov disinformation & distraction... nothing really new in centuries,, cease fire stand down (incl. 'weather' mutation), there's moms & tiny babys in every one of our towns... thanks.. sing along... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjItDLnAwc
...operation at the Virginia baseball field this morning cost?
OK, How is that different from trying to sell someone washing powder. It washes cleaner (no proof required). it makes your whites whiter - but we don't demand a reference or scientific study for the test that proved it.
We just accept that most of the stuff we will be told is bullshit. Whether it is about a new car (more energy efficient, chick magnet, safer, cheaper to run, higher resale value) or a political campaign (will make you richer / safer, will ensure jobs, signals virtue).
We used to have a healthy skepticism for politics - riddle: How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move. What has made us so much more gullible or easy to influence? Have we become used to living in a more truthful society? Are we just looking for a set of information (true or not) that supports our preconceived ideas? Do we associate good looks with honesty? Are we so desperate for someone we can trust that we start to believe that TV stars offer real, honest, impartial advice?
Where should we draw the line between disbelief and nihilism? Is there a line to be drawn?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Didn't Clinton spend like a few hundred million on her campaign? How much fake news did that buy?
GET OVER IT!
How much did it cost to get this nonsense posted on Slashdot?
Rupert Murdoch loses $80 million dollars a year in his newspaper "The Australian" to do his election influences. This seems cheap.
The page you point to talks about campaigns on VK, a Russian social media site. And even then, the article just provides fact free assertions like "According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities."
This article's TLDR
Relating to fake news is the common practice of big name media, including NPR, turning off comments for many, or even all, stories. To be fair, spam and trolls are a problem, but not insurmountable. Transparency is severely lacking with MSM. Fortunately, there are alternative sources. None are perfect, but reading many different viewpoints allow one to get a more accurate, detailed version of events.
In addition, many amateurs have take up reporting on various stories of interest to them; crowd-sourcing. A prime example is the coverage of the Oroville Dam situation by Juan Brown on his Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/blancolirio/videos Incredible detail without all the doom and gloom of typical MSM reporting.
Specifically Google Now (or whatever they are calling it this week) news cards are atrocious. I'm either in a news bubble (which rarely contains much of what I'd like to, or should be aware or) or if I clear my history, I'm getting highly questionable conspiracy bullshit, and trivial non-news posts.
They appear to be treating reddit, slashdot, random bloggers, the NYT, Fox, WAPO, and nearly everything else on the internet as equally reputable. This is a big problem. Their algorithm is absolutely terrible at determining my interests and even worse at picking reliable sources. The the point of news is not to cater to my interests anyway. I want to know what I don't know, not more of what I'm already aware of. And I absolutely want reliable sources and hard news, not random opinions. If I make one search to find a album I want then I'm inundated with news about a band I have no interest in other than listening to their music. Is this what people want? Why is there even an assumption that I want news items based on my search history? I do not. Not sure why anyone would. We search for all kinds of random crap for all kinds of reasons.
The news app is slightly better but I shudder to think what an average unsophisticated Android user is exposed to when getting news via Google's apps these days.
Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
I'm not at all a fan of the Huff, but if you're going to state that they and CNN publish articles that are "patently false," some documentation showing specific examples (and more than one example: you said "articles") would be needed. Right now, my summary of what you said is "they published stories that don't support my pre-existing opinion, therefore I will state that these articles are patently false."
Or, to quote wikipedia: citation needed.
American journalists do it on their company's dime.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Fake news generated online only works if the mainstream media picks it up and reports it for a week. Most people with minimal critical thinking skills will dismiss a fake news story if it only exists online. But their confirmation bias will give it credence if the mainstream media talks about it. Even if the headline turns out to be B.S., confirmation bias will cause people to think, "Well, this may be false but there's probably something there."
The people who are most interested in influencing elections this way would not see $400k as a large investment and could potentially recoup that in a single favorable tax bill.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
They're democratizing it, not subverting it. It used to be that a small group of companies controlled your mind. Now lots of them have to bid for / vote on who gets your mind.
You're complaining that there are more Thomas Paines handing out pamphlets, than there used to be. I can understand why you don't like it: maybe you had some kind of allegiance to one of the old propagandists. But if you don't like it, then you ought to be working to train people to how to deal with non-mainstream propaganda: recognize non-mainstream propaganda and reject it, in favor of downloading their opinions from the old ones, who had a large marketshare back in the good old days.
Two election cycles in a row, Harry Reid made the widely repeated claim that Mitt Romney and Donald Trump paid no taxes. He was the Senate Majority Leader in at least one of those cycles. The so-called media factually reported that he made the claim, which is just as effective as repeating the claim themselves without opening themselves up to any legal action.
Fake news (paid news articles slotted into news articles as though its real news from the TV stations), is a well understood market. e.g. see the investigation from 2006 USA:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tv-stations-fake-news-scrutinized/
There's a new twist on this, and that's the Hannity style stuff, where you pay the presenter to present a news article in line with your aims. It's like product placement for campaigning.
So you might spend $20k placing your Pomerade drink on "Queer Eye" (this is what that slot cost), and about $50 for a slot in Hannity. It's "issue placement" as a product placement.
Story written just today to answer your very question. Amazing how that happens (really not that amazing once you realize most leftists posters are getting talking points from the DNC)
CNN is fake news, you're denying it makes you a liar.
No the hilarious part is when someone on the right tries to tell everyone what all "real Americans" or Democarts believe.
Have you tried speaking for yourself and letting others do the same?
CNN + Anonymous source = Fake news
Pretty simple to draw a correct conclusion when all the facts in the story are wrong.
Video of CNN cameraman man "protesting". Anchor wasn't told they were faking it and outed the cameraman as a CNN employee that is normally on the other side of the camera.
Pretty damn funny. They aren't even pretending they are doing real news now.
obviously nobody would vote for who they wanted unless some fake news slammed the opposing runner.
it could have nothing to do with the fact that hillary was largely unlikeable, no that had nothing to do with it, and trump only won because of fake news.... the same fake news that slammed him also.
everyone must be sheep. baaah baaah
For those who are history buffs, you know very well the history of political propaganda. So really, this is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the medium. Instead of newspapers and posters, social media is now the primary medium. I think most likely many of us forgot about propaganda because we stopped reading newspapers and watching network television in favor of streaming media, websites and social media. The propaganda spinsters finally caught on and are using social media and now we're aware of it all over again. It's the new old thing.
We'll make great pets
If you ask me. Fox, propaganda on the right Msnbc/CNN etc..propaganda on the left. New "bias" depends on where you stand. What's to the left for some, is to the right, for others.
CNN - Clinton News Network
They do this kind of shit all the time. If you're watching CNN for some other reason than to see what they're lying and spinning this time to suit their agenda then bless your little heart.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Even the U.S. navy advertised openly in papers a few years back to hire people for exactly these social propaganda campaigns. The article headline almost suggests that the U.S. has never ever done anything like this. Funny.
What's next? Trying to murder Republicans because you're such a sore fucking loser?
Today we saw the logical result of what's defined as "progress".
"Progressives" demonize and dehumanize political opponents.
To the point where a "progressive" decides to try murdering them.
So yeah, let's "retard progress" as much as possible.
Because it seems like only RETARDS call for "progress".
When in reality the problem is the population is too stupid for democracy to work.
No one is forcing people to believe fake news....or are they? Snakes in the education system? Or are we going to ride the myth that it's really hard to provide people with the basics they need to concentrate on developing their minds while we engage in worldwide military conquest with hardly a few years' rest between campaigns?
People are being kept stupid so certain people can own our supposed democracy.
We had the one and only election not meddled with by foreign entities. Where as we have meddled in the foreign elections of both allies and rivals. We now are experiencing a tiny tiny tiny miniscule dose of our own medicine - and whiny like a baby.
I'd be happy to have been paid 50 cents for that post.
Slashdot pushes another fake news NSA psy-op, but that's SOP here as anyone with an IQ in at least double figures understands.
But here's an example of just how bad this NSA/GCHQ propagada really is. The Daily Mail- the most sophisticated online 'newspaper' service- had a recent story about some guy who 'cycled' the world. And they 'quoted' him as only 'fearing' for his life during his time in Russia and Iran. What an amazing coincidence. A 'non-political' Human Interest story that just happens to demonise the two most important targets of the Deep State. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking the Daily Mail exists purely as a 21st Century 'Goebbels' propaganda operation.
Anyway its time for another Slashdot story lionising Israel just before the next one demonising Iran.
STUPID, YES YOU ^^^
You who are dumb enough to believe it is anything liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican, rather than powers-that-be versus the masses.
Many of the BS articles were in favor of the corporate elitist Hillary and against Bernie Sanders.
Go read the articles, and then watch the videos on youtube.com
Case in point "Trump says soldiers who commit suicide are weak", go watch the damn video.
Washing based PR firm bought this abandoned domain before the election, Tried to hide the domain registration, created a content management system and stuffed it full of garbage RSS fed content, then in the lead up to the election pumped fake anti-Trump news.
Interestingly, these fake news stories then got trended in Facebook - from a site Alexa was showing had pretty much zero traffic.
Yeah - Fake news for Hillary was alive and well during the election and whether Facebook was manipulated into Trending the shite, or whether they were knowingly disseminating it would be an interesting thing to know...
Here is an interesting commentary from Forbes about how to find non-fake journalism. The number one item in his list of criteria for how to tell whether a site is legitimate news source: "If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction?"
After youtube played the clip you posted, the very next clip loaded was the apology from CNN and the correction. A google search for "Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation" gives me 95,200 hits.
So, to the contrary. I will cite this next time I am asked for an example of how CNN is NOT fake news.
Search Results ...
Video for Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation 16:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...
WATCH: CNN Apologizes For Lying About Milwaukee Riots (VIDEO ...
https://www.conservativeoutfit... News
... CNN's Carol Costello said she "regrets the second part of the statement was not included" in the report. .@CarolCNN apologizes for not airing full clip of Milwaukee victim's sister calling .... Put yourself in her situation, your house just got shot at.
CNN anchor offers apology for shortening of Milwaukee clip – CNN ...
https://cnncommentary.com/.../......
... shot by an officer on Saturday afternoon, which triggered riots in the city. ... On-air, Costello apologized, “I want to take a moment to clarify something from Monday. ... CNN is a lying piece of crap network that is not a good place to get ...
www.topbuzzapp.com/article/i6320193922531639812?app_id=1106
...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/.../c...
... an officer on Saturday afternoon, triggering destructive riots in the city. ... On Wednesday, anchor Carol Costello issued a rare on-air apology .... You're one of the few people I've spoken with, who sees both sides of the situation.
Costello Apologizes For Deceptive Report About Milwaukee | The ...
dailycaller.com/.../cnn-anchor-grovels-to-audience-after-allowing-deceptive-report-ab...
...
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About ... - Pinterest
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot
Carol Costello of CNN apologized on air for her network lying about the Milwaukee situation via a quick on
Aug 18, 2016 - CNN just apologized on air for not showing the full clip of the
Aug 17, 2016 - On Wednesday morning, CNN Newsroom anchor Carol Costello offered
CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For Violence
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized on Wednesday for allowing a deceptive report about the violence in Milwaukee to air that characterized
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwau
No true Bernie supporter would do this.
Do I need to point out that you haven't provided even a weak example of false reporting from the sources you're complaining about? "Go read the articles," is not useful. Provide a link to one of these articles, then a link demonstrating that it says something false. Or, GTFO.