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.
So there was a lot of fake news coming out, and some was from Russia. Thanks for this information, I would never have guessed.
As consumers of news, how can we be sure that this news story isn't an example of "fake news"?
The article says
The FBI declined to comment for this story.
And it repeatedly includes stuff like
Sources say
and
according to multiple sources
and
according to two sources
and (once again!)
according to multiple sources
The lack of concrete details and information leaves me very uneasy. It makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to independently verify what is being claimed.
Should I play it safe and assume that this article may just be "fake news" until proven otherwise?
CNN and the DNC have been claiming that Russia was responsible for John Podesta's falling for a phishing scam, which gave hackers access to his account which contained information that lead to further DNC hacks. How can the Russians be responsible for the foolishness of a single American? It's time for real facts, not the ongoing BS, which is repeated enough that it becomes circular and self sustaining.
" was largely treated as non-news by the same media."
It was being reported, but the media kept saying "oh, this isn't a big deal" while anything Trump did was reported as the end of days.
Had the news been impartial, Clinton easily wins, but the media couldn't help themselves and made the whole system look corrupt and pre-planned.
What's funny is when Democrats say that Hillary was treated unfairly by the media. Are you kidding me? Her downfall was that she was treated too well that it was obvious the whole system is corrupt...and that she was so confident throughout, as if she was daring voters to try and stop her pre-ordained presidency.
Had the news been impartial, Clinton easily wins, but the media couldn't help themselves and made the whole system look corrupt and pre-planned.
The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.
The DNC on the other hand....
The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!
"His name was James Damore."
...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.
More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. And since then Trump has become one of the most unpopular presidents since presidential polls began.
So tell me again how exactly you have a window on the "average American".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not American so maybe I've missed something despite my best attempts at following the events in the US closely but I am under the impression that there are several investigations underway into the Russia thing. So how come it's possible for people to claim anything to be proven, one way or the other, when the guys looking into it (Muller, the senate committee, etc) have not come out with anything yet as they're still gathering data?
I've always considered /. to be a place of (mostly) rational, science-oriented people who understand the importance and value of due process and following the evidence, but yet people from both the left and the right alike are proclaiming that they know the end result of the investigation(s) before it's even remotely completed. What the fuck is up with this shit?
The presence of this kind of rhetoric to me is worrisome because it reeks of 3rd world pseudo-Orwellian BS. People in their own little bubbles with insane amounts of confirmation bias absorbing blog posts masquerading as news and becoming convinced that they know the truth ahead of time, so that when the investigation(s) finally conclude, no matter the result, half of the people will be up and arms and shouting 'Conspiracy, conspiracy, I know the result is false, I read so at [insert news/blog outlet of choice] several months ago, clearly the establishment/'deep state' is [out to frame the innocent president/corrupt and in the back pocket of a corrupt president and lying to protect him]".
Democratic systems require an informed voter base to function. Once that is gone, once the public can be spoon fed tailor made propaganda and manipulated with relative ease into believing nearly anything without hard evidence, then the entire concept of accountability goes out the window, and truth stops mattering, by which point you might just as well elect a king and be done with it.
-1984
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.
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.
I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).
I was reading about the DOJ slush fund(**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.
This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny, 11 California counties have more registered voters than adults, all the leaks and outright disobeying of executive orders from the WH.
And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless, then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results, then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?), leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander, and rioted for weeks. They thought all this was OK, if it somehow got them to their goals. For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots, and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.
All this *in addition* to the Sanders thing, and getting special treatment in the press and for the debates, blocking reasonable voter registration, and suppressing the military vote.
There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out. The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.
I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...
(*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.
(**) DOJ plea-bargains where the offending company pays its fine to charity, but the DOJ only chooses charities that promote left-wing causes.
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.
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.
That's not a reason to support Trump. It's a reason to support the truth. You're not inherently defending Trump by attacking fake news.
On the other hand...
The whole Russian thing is completely made up.
That's a stupid thing to say, and you are a stupid person for saying it. Trump and his relatives and his cabinet have lied at every turn about their various ties to and meetings with Russia, and not by accident, either. They couldn't have been accidents. If they have nothing to hide, why are they lying so much?
Russia isn't even our enemy!
Russia is not our enemy on paper, which is why what Trump has done is not treason. You have to be aiding the enemy, and Russia is (on paper) our ally. We are the left and right fists of the UNSC. But Russia is not our friend. Russia is a competitor.
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.
And he's got a penchant for poisoning people who disagree with him, and he's fond of spreading a lot of rhetoric about what assholes we are. You wouldn't actually invite him to dinner, at least, not if your kids were going to be home. And you'd lock up your valuables.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the Russia story is made up, why did Flynn lie? And why did Sessions lie? And why did Trump Jr. lie? And why did Jared lie? All about meeting with Russians?
You'd think if it was such a fake story that they wouldn't keep lying about it. They'd just tell the truth.
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.