Slashdot Mirror
FBI Tracked 'Fake News' Believed To Be From Russia On Election Day (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The FBI monitored social media on Election Day last year in an effort to track a suspected Russian disinformation campaign utilizing "fake news," CNN has learned. In the months leading up to Election Day, Twitter and Facebook were the feeding grounds for viral "news" stories floating conspiracies and hoaxes, many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton. On Election Day, dozens of agents and analysts huddled at a command center arrayed with large monitoring screens at the FBI headquarters in Washington watching for security threats, according to multiple sources. That included analysts monitoring cyber threats, after months of mounting Russian intrusions targeting every part of the US political system, from political parties to policy think-tanks to state election systems. On this day, there was also a group of FBI cyber and counterintelligence analysts and investigators watching social media. FBI analysts had identified social media user accounts behind stories, some based overseas, and the suspicion was that at least some were part of a Russian disinformation campaign, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
OK. What did they find? Or is the answer to that question (maybe even the question itself!) "fake news"?
Exactly which points of disinformation were being spread that are provably false? (No, obvious lunacy like being a satanic blood drinking whatever don't count.)
What makes them say it was a campaign of influence rather than clickbait for ads?
...many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton.
Trump and Clinton were arguably the two most hated presidential candidates to run in US presidential election history. They didn't need the "help" of fake news to have material on which to attack each other as there was no shortage of negative true information about them.
And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.
The key difference was that every little thing Trump did was held up by the media (and the Republican establishment) as a harbinger of the end of modern civilization if Trump were to get elected.
Actually, pretty much everything Trump did was completely ignored by his base, serious questions weren't answered, and he's fulfilled a lot of low expectations of him. But then, so has his base, who is still championing his successes, declaring his Christian morality, and insisting that the rest of us give him a chance even as he denounces all his opponents for standing in his way.
On the other hand, every thing that Hillary did (and there was lots: evading federal records laws, flipping on "don't ask don't tell", flipping on gay marriage, colluding with the DNC on debate prep, colluding with the DNC on subverting Sanders' campaign, the highly questionable financial arrangements of the Clinton foundation, etc.) was largely treated as non-news by the same media.
Is that why they reported on it incessantly?
So, in summary, there was absolutely no shortage of negative news on Clinton, it was just getting ignored by the news media.
Except for all the stories.
The copious amounts of them. Taken seriously.
Meanwhile, so is the clown.
I'm a politician. I am an elected member of the State Level Executive Committee of the Texas Libertarian Party. I don't come to Slashdot for politics.
I absolutely hate all the fake news about Donald Trump.
Trump isn't a Libertarian - he's far from supporting my views, but I find myself defending and supporting him constantly. Why? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FAKE CRAP ATTACKING HIM.
I'm a crusader against bullshit. I really, really disliked Obama, but there were occasions when rumors circulated on the right about him that weren't true. I defended him in those instances. With Trump it's nearly a full time job.
The whole Russian thing is completely made up. There is some justifiable Russian narrative, but only when applied to the Hilary camp and uranium dealings - which the news isn't talking about. The Don Jr. thing was a frame job where nothing really happened. Yes he met with that lawyer who was here without a visa because she was let in specifically for this purpose, but they're not exploring that publicly. Every president in my lifetime has talked to Russian/Soviet leaders. I can remember as far back as Reagan doing it - I was born during the Carter administration.
I am personally against a wall and am for open borders with a catch - we have to shut off our freebie system first. Fine you can come here, but the rest of us aren't going to support you. Donald Trump is pro imminent domain, I'm very much against that. He hasn't pulled our troops out of foreign conflicts yet, I have a problem with that. The Donald is not my man, please quit making me defend him. By attacking him with bullshit constantly you're drowning out legitimate criticism that needs to be addressed. Notice nobody talks about the imminent domain stuff or the troops where they don't belong part because of Russia, Russia, Russia!
Russia isn't even our enemy! Once the Soviet Union broke up they've been sort of neutral and someone we've done some dealings with. They're like that guy we've worked with on a couple of projects but he doesn't come to our house for Thanksgiving or anything.
There needs to be a collective head-ass removal in this nation where reality is concerned.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.
Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.
The DNC on the other hand....
The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!
Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.
What percentage of CNN stories are fake? Do you have some examples of them consistently publishing fake news? Seems more like you've just bought into Trump's "don't trust anyone" rhetoric.
Well, by that token, why doesn't Russia simply come out and say "this message was brought to you by the Russian Federation"?
I'll answer my own question: because nobody would believe the message. And they'd be right.
Yes, everyone does this; it's called "information warfare". This doesn't make it good for the target country.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
(*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.
Whether the Republicans are also corrupt is only a question an idiot would have to ask at this point. If they have a different level of corruption, it is not apparently significantly different, so that question is not already answered, merely irrelevant.
Your first response is to name calling.
It's interesting, because I've always held that the Republicans were cold, selfish Scrooge-like people who don't care about others.
Coming through the election, I've just now realized how poorly based that opinion is. When I mentally gauge the amount of hate and loathing from the left to come up with a "compensation" metric, and if I apply this metric to some of the widely-held beliefs that I've been told over the years, many of them evaporate.
Republicans are more charitable than Democrats, for instance.
Apply your own metric to well-known memes about the Republican party, and what do you come up with?
And then look up some actual statistics. You may be surprised at the results.
Really? When were those quarters? Because the data indicates that you are providing fake news yourself...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So a big fat 0%. Nice.
Originally, people talked about fake news like "Clinton has brain tumor and only 6 months to live" or "Birmingham in the UK is a 'no-go zone. Something that's been made up and has no basis in reality.
That's quite a bit different than being mean to Trump or a false story that was retracted and the people responsible were held accountable.
Now I won't say they have the highest quality stories, but they're a fare cry from the absolute lies that you'll see from right-wing sources.