Should Congress Force Social Media To Investigate Foreign Propaganda Trolls? (politico.com)

"I fought foreign propaganda for the FBI," writes a former special agent from its Counterintelligence Division. Now an associate dean at Yale Law School, he's warning that "the tools we had won't work anymore." An anonymous reader quotes Politico: The bureau is now faced with huge private companies, like Facebook and Twitter, which are ostensibly neutral and have no professional or ethical obligation to vet the material they distribute. Further, foreign intelligence service propaganda agents are no longer human operatives on American soil -- they are invisible "trolls," often operating from a foreign country and behind social media accounts that make them impossible for the FBI to approach directly. Or, in the case of so-called bots -- software programs designed to simulate humans -- they might not even be people at all... [S]ocial media platforms can reach an almost limitless audience, often within days or hours, more or less for free: Russia's Facebook ads alone reached between 23 million and 70 million viewers.

Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this "fake news," there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale... But Congress could pass legislation that requires social media companies to cooperate with counterintelligence in the same ways they do with law enforcement. For example, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires telecommunications companies to design their digital networks in such a way that would permit wiretaps for criminal cases. Similarly, requiring social media platforms to develop ways to vet and authenticate foreign users and proactively report potential bots to the FBI would enable the FBI to identify perception management operations as they are occurring. In addition to monitoring these specific FIS-based accounts, the FBI could publicly expose the source of particular accounts, ads or news...
"At this point, we have no choice: It's clear that our current counterintelligence strategy hasn't caught up to the age of asymmetrical information warfare," the former counterintelligence agent concludes. "Until it does, we'll be silently allowing our freedoms to be manipulated...."

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech, anyone?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

Why would that be modded down? Free speech is precisely the issue. If one doesn't like what's being said, they can tune out. Nobody is being forced to listen or believe. It really is that simple.

Re:No

[Dutchmaan]

well then.. lets get some REAL transparency going Mr. "Anonymous Coward"... you don't have anything to HIDE do you?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is US property. Like an embassy.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech has nothing to do with transparency.... Its about protecting personal freedom of expression, surely you are not THAT stupid and you understand that?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguably, it's not covered. But that's not to say that free speech shouldn't be considered a basic human right.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Free speech is precisely the issue." BULLSHIT. You're talking about foreign agents using a network to spread propaganda for anti-US purposes, not US government "censoring" anyone based on speech that doesn't call for violence. Even the idiotic Breitbart child molesters get to speak on college campuses. Free speech isn't under any more threat than ever it was, what's under threat is whatever shred of integrity the Republican party may have once had.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that freedom of speech isn't an American exclusive, right?

Talk about uncultured and untraveled. Try getting out of your little bubble and live somewhere else once in your life.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro tip: go sign up for the Resist thing... Since you obviously enjoy spreading your hate and lies online, you might as well get paid for it.

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

You're talking about foreign agents using a network to spread propaganda for anti-US purposes

No, you are.

Free speech is free speech, and everybody has the right. The US is the only country on the planet that happens to have it codified into law without any qualifications. All others are mere posers.

Re:No

[Archtech]

1. As previous comments reminded you, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right - not reserved purely for US citizens.

2. One person's "propaganda" is another person's "truth", and vice-versa. If any nation ever allowed a police department like the FBI to tell its citizens which is which, it would automatically be a police state.

3. Why should anyone assume that US citizens - supposedly among the world's healthiest, best educated, and most intelligent - are unable to distinguish between truth and propaganda? Or, indeed, to exercise their own opinions and judgment about all the many statements that fall in the grey area in between?

In most parts of the world the very idea that any government department or corporations should be allowed - let alone expected - to tell citizens what to believe and what not to believe would be greeted with shocked dismay.

Re:No

[Archtech]

Unless, of course, the comments on this thread are representative of US public opinion. In which case, so much the worse for the USA - it is no longer a free country, and the very idea of freedom is no longer understood.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Well! The mods here are making it perfectly clear that they are NOT free speech advocates. The subject is clearly not offtopic! It is THE topic. This is what forum poisoning looks like. Oh well... Later dudes!

Re:No

[king neckbeard]

Why should I be any more concerned about foreign agents than corporations, who openly use traditional media for their propaganda? The greatest threats always come from within, and all the Russia scaremongering in the world isn't going to change that.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Kettle meet pot.

How ironic is it US nationalists complain about foreign governments spying on them and interferring in their elections. Like the CIA and NSA haven't been doing that for decades past the cold war.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but it is, at least on the scale America does it.

Re:No

[spire3661]

By little bubble, you mean our continent-sized nation that sets the cultural tone for the rest of the world? You do realize cultures come to us and we integrate them, right? Growing up in Detroit i got to experience all sorts of cultures..Polish, Irish, Greek, Arabs (Muslim and Christian), Italians, Germans, Slavs, Yugos, Croats.. Try a better tack next time besides 'America is culturally bankrupt'.

Re:No

[dgatwood]

Exactly. I don't know which to be more concerned about: foreign governments manipulating elections through organized propaganda or further scope creep of our intelligence services into the area of domestic surveillance.

No, wait. Yes, I do. The latter.

Russian electioneering happened once and is unlikely to happen again. There are too many people at too many companies studying what happened carefully and developing machine learning techniques and other strategies to ensure that it can't happen in the future. But once parts of the U.S. government gain additional access to various Internet services, you'll never get their fingers back out of that pie. One is a temporary manipulation of our freedom, the other is a permanent loss thereof.

Frankly, it should be an easy choice for anyone, no matter what political camp you fall into.

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?

Here's the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you point out where it says "soil" or "citizen"? Can you also explain how such restrictions are consistent with the phrase "no law"?

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

Here's the problem: Crime rates have fallen dramatically in America over the last 20 years, yet the FBI's budget has gone UP. There are a lot of agents with nothing to do, so they need to make up fake crimes like "propaganda by dirty foreigners".

This serves two purposes: First, it gives them a justification for existing, and protects them from budget cuts since only the FBI can ensure that the American people only see "clean" information. Second, it helps them get even with Trump for how he treated Comey, by insinuating that Trump voters only supported him because they were "tricked" into doing so by the Russians, and therefore the election was illegitimate and Hillary should be president.

Re:No

[unixisc]

Free speech, anyone?

Precisely, how about making it clear to Zuckerburg, Dorsey, Pichai, Nadella, et al that EU restrictions on speech better not apply to US citizens, and if they do, those 4 companies should be banned from operating in the US?

I know, the First Amendment doesn't apply to private organizations, which are at liberty to ban whatever they like. However, when something starts out as an open (as in free speech) platform and then morphs into something else at the behest of governments outside the US and that gets universally applied as a simple 'one-size-fits-all' implementation of those governments' requirements, it's not a bad idea to step in. It would be different if we had dozens of FaceBooks, Twitters, mobile platforms and so on, but since we don't, it's worth looking at carefully!

Re:No

[ceoyoyo]

It seems to me the American constitution says things about "inalienable" rights. They're not very inalienable if they only count when you're a US citizen on US soil, are they?

Re:No

[ceoyoyo]

The US has lots of qualifications on freedom of speech codified into law. It starts in the US constitution ("Congress shall make no law....") and the infamous "the", and continues with lots of clarifying laws and court decisions.

You're correct that lots of other countries also have freedom of speech, with some restrictions, codified in their laws though.

Re:No

[Hognoxious]

The numbers & statistics may say that it's theoretically gone down, but Newt says otherwise!

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You are uneducated and uncultured if that is what you believe.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

What if i go to Japan for a visit and call you a retarded n-i_g-g_e-r faced asshole who loves to gobble trump semen and who loves to drink hillary's period juice?

Am i still covered?

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what he said. But enjoy your glow of moral superiority whilst strolling through your disneyland of cultures.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but meeting someone from another country in no way makes you understand life in that country. You are an ignorant and uncultured blowhard, just like most Americans.

Re:No

[unixisc]

speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?

Ain't it something like how foreigners who're not in the US have the right to come here nonetheless - an argument the Left was using during the travel ban?

Re:No

[BitterOak]

speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?

The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not the speech was made by citizens or not, nor to do with where the speech was made. The first words of the Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." The Amendment applies to the U.S. Government, and by later amendments to States as well. (It doesn't apply to foreign legislatures or governments, but they may have their own Constitutions with similar protections.) Since the article is talking about a proposed law passed by Congress, the First Amendment applies. Nothing in the Amendment restricts the scope of its application with regards to citizenship of those targeted by the law or their geographical location. If you're on trial in a U.S. court, the First Amendment applies.

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

It seems to me the American constitution says things about "inalienable" rights.

Nope. That is the Declaration of Independence, which carries no force of law.

Re:No

[yndrd1984]

It seems to me the American constitution says things about "inalienable" rights.

Well, the Declaration of Independence does, but that's not considered to be legally binding in the same way as US Constitution.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"Free speech is free speech, and everybody has the right" That's horseshit. Go say bomb on your airplane, idiot. LIFE IS GRAYSCALE. You are binary.

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

Indeed. The Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to censor speech (which is what the FBI is trying to do). To the contrary, it specifically and unambiguously denies the federal government any such authority.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that freedom of speech isn't an American exclusive, right?

Go ahead, express yourself in North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chile, (and others) or even Germany or the UK.
You're right that freedom of speech isn't an American exclusive, but it's now limited to an increasingly small number of countries with the US being the pioneer and bastion.

Re:No

[ShanghaiBill]

Nobody is being forced to listen or believe. It really is that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. The advocates of censorship don't just want to avoid hearing the message. They also want YOU to not hear the message.

This isn't about controlling what the Russians do. It is about controlling what the American people see and hear. The Russians are just the boogeyman being used as the justification.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about foreign agents using a network to spread propaganda for anti-US purposes...

Such as the organizations funded by George Soros?

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

The right is the freedom to speech, and the Constitution is written to protect that right. The failure of other countries does not revoke that right, just that the right is suppressed in those other countries. Governments cannot grant our revoke rights, only protect our suppress rights.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the First Amendment is supposed to protect a UNIVERSAL human right.

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech on US soil". It says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech", period.

The people who wrote that believed that the rights they were protecting were granted by God himself. Even if you don't believe that, it's pretty obvious that everybody shares equally in them.

I don't know where people get this moronic idea that it is or ever has been OK for the US Government to run amok outside the us or on non-citizens.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your first two points,

3. Why should anyone assume that US citizens - supposedly among the world's healthiest

We aren't

best educated

We aren't

and most intelligent

Honestly, on average, we Americans are probably of average intelligence

are unable to distinguish between truth and propaganda? Or, indeed, to exercise their own opinions and judgment about all the many statements that fall in the grey area in between?

In most parts of the world the very idea that any government department or corporations should be allowed - let alone expected - to tell citizens what to believe and what not to believe would be greeted with shocked dismay.

Propaganda exists because it works. Americans are just as susceptible to propaganda as the rest of the world. I don't see any problem with our government attempting to prevent another government from using verifiably false information to influence our citizens. Now, should we be telling Facebook to perform these investigations? No, that should be the FBI's job, and I'm pretty sure (although I'm providing no information to back this up) that they already have the tools and relationships to do that.

We shouldn't enact laws to declare Facebook the propaganda police, but it is important to fight propaganda.

Re: No

[easyTree]

The greatest threats always come from within, and all the Russia scaremongering in the world isn't going to change that.

Though it may change the perception of it.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not protected it isn't a right.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you feel the same way about who should remit taxes to the US? Should that set of beliefs not apply to other countries reciprocally? Why or why not?

Or are you just a hypocrite...

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

If any nation ever allowed a police department like the FBI to tell its citizens which is which, it would automatically be a police state.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said- but I will point out that the US government regularly tells other nations what to do on behalf of a select elite. Copy"right" is a great example of the US meddling in, manipulating, and intimidating other countries. Copy"right" is a political ideology- an artificial construct- and not one everybody agrees with. People on opposing ends of the spectrum from communists to libertarians don't believe in this artificial creation and everybody in-between just about ignores it evidenced by widespread permission-less copying around the world (ie democrats and republicans alike).

We're all living in a police state. One may be in more or less of a police state depending on where one lives, but none-the-less. As an example in the United States and many countries nazi-style checkpoints are routine (or I've heard some places the cops just pull over 20 cards at a time randomly without any reason to suspect people of a crime). They go under the guise of stopping drunk drivers- but in reality catch almost no drunk drivers and severely inconvenience thousands of people regularly and it would not surprise me if its not hit in the millions of people at this point. The US federal government is funding these checkpoints. They routinely ticket people for minor violations at these checkpoints and look primarily for anything in plain sight they can get people on. It's not about safety at all- but revenue generation and what would otherwise be illegal and unconstitutional search. Terrible court precedent has allowed this to happen. New Hampshire is probably one of the only states where there are regularly protesters at these checkpoints- thanks in most part to the Free State Project which is a migration of liberty-minded people to one region (state) for the purpose of pursuing the first free state/country/etc. That is implement the ideals of what we were suppose to have. Freedom to travel without hindrance (no registration, license, license plate, etc), freedom to associate (ie you should not be able to ban ex-cons from associating, voting, etc or groups from protesting/amassing, ie 'free speech' zones), freedom from theft (most tax is little more than a redistribution of wealth and a deprivation of peoples funds such that they become reliant on government for things like security, schooling, child care, and other things the majority would otherwise be able to afford), and so on.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many ways to suppress speech.
One that is popular when pushing propaganda is to just drown out unwanted messages with your own.
This method is pretty popular since it doesn't look like censorship while being very effective.
It is also cost effective. Someone hired to shitpost every day can cover an insane number of internet forums.
Especially since the posts doesn't have to be well thought out and the same message can be posted on several places without much modification.

So, are you going to support censorship in the name of free speech?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that the so called "free speech" in this case is used to drown out actual speech from legit citizens?
The purpose of those trolls is to prevent legit discussions about the subject from being had.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer is no if you do not support Hillary. Is there a law against a foreign corporation running opinion adds?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

criminal prosecution in the US of speech not made on US soil by non-citizens is hard to cover with US criminal laws

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, one guy knows better than all those statisticians keeping careful records.

Re:No

[fustakrakich]

LIFE IS GRAYSCALE

Sure, for those who are color blind

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore that schmuck, some people literally are not satisfied until they see reversal of commonality- because it is commonality.
- Have a society with certain characteristics? Well whomever is on the edges of that MUST now take over. Reverse all the things!!! And if you don't you're oppressing others!

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only propaganda and counter-propaganda? Where are the objective sources to be trusted? Who's fault is it that US mainstream media lost all objectivity, degrading to worst of tabloid quality, and for the web every rumor goes? In this climate, those with more interesting presentation win the mind share. We have caused it ourselves by not holding the news sources to a higher standard. Shutting down the other side does not solve the issue, since fake news now comes from all sides

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You listed eight countries. There are 195 countries in the world. Since you are American, I didn't expect you to know that.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Continent sized? Have you seen Eurasia? Have you seen all of the rest of the world. Your "continent sized" nation is more like a prison of ignorance and ego.

Re:No

[LifesABeach]

Is it the charter of the CIA, and not that of the FBI?

Re:No

[LifesABeach]

Poor A/C is your culture un-adaptive? Have you considered the hopes of Ghost Dancers? They are yours.

Re:No

[Plus1Entropy]

There is no agreed upon "number" of countries in the world, because not everyone agrees that everyone else is a country. You counting Taiwan? Palestine (Gaza and West Bank together or separate)? Is Crimea still a country or not? The Russians might say no, but others disagree.

Obligatory CGP Grey.

Re:No

[Plus1Entropy]

I agree with your principle, but I think the law has been settled for a long time, i.e. the Constitution does not generally apply to non-citizens outside the country. To answer your question, I think it's implied in "the people", meaning "the people of the United States", as stated in the preamble.

In this particular case, you may be able to make the argument that the US Congress cannot limit what people can say or what they can hear. Meaning to censor non-citizen foreigners on social media would violate the 1st Amendment Rights of Americans who might read it.

Re:No

[Plus1Entropy]

Re-reading more carefully, "the people" part only applies to the peaceful assembly and petitioning the government. So you are completely right.

Re:No

[sexconker]

The 1st amendment expressly limits the government's ability to curtail any speech.

Re:No

[Plus1Entropy]

Can you give me a URL? I'd love to get my hands on some of those Soros bucks everyone keeps talking about.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate media has created a bubble. Internet is threatening to burst that bubble. It's just about a few routes and channels, that will soon be closed down though, so it's about currency.

However, propaganda works both ways and adversaries can keep at it until successful. Some stories are hard to debunk and most people just believe what they're told because having been conditioned for it for so long.

Re:No

[Dutchmaan]

No, this is NOT about freedom of expression, this is about protecting THE TRUTH... the ability to separate facts from lies, to know where stories originate and the sources used so that they can be judged accurately... News IS about transparency.. and the subject at hand is NEWS, the information we consume about the world around us....not freedom of expression... What good is expression when you live in a world of lies... nothing more than parlor tricks and slights of hand. That is something we need to fight against.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/craigslist-ad-offers-protesters-15-to-crash-trump-rally/article/2587047

no problem, you just need to have that time on your hands

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

are you fully retarded or something? have the past 70 years just flown by you while you were in your martian fucking space cave?

America was averse to the war because they were happy that they would not have to deal with the fact that they were stealing industrial secrets the world over, and hoping that Germany and England might be weakened first, queue their late entrance.

the CIA have been installing governments the world over, during the 40s-70s to destabilize the growing economic threats from South America demanding too much freedom from oppressive American corporations (who hired armies to protect banana plantations)

the same goes for the Middle East x 100 and South America to destabilize oil production

they even took a stab at Asia, having successfully reduced japan to a nothing, hot off the trot went straight for China, by proxy, the Korean war, except the government(truman) came to its senses and cut off McArthur's advance as the Chinese proved more then willing to defend their territory. (this post is not meant to excuse the grotesque acts of the Maoist regime, simply a commentary on US intervention world wide over the past 120 years)

the really fucked up thing is for Americans it's always about money, and they found this awesome schtick where it would be about "freedom" and not about international law, (the US would never be bound by such a naive concept) not about violating the sovereignty of a nation. The US never had a mandate to become this monstrous creation, it has become warped by the greed of men.

so now to go on about how Russia had tried to interfere (and i mean like not really interfere like we did and literally assasinate presidents of sovereign nations) by basically doing the equivalent of handing out pamphlets on a street corner, you must really have some chutzpah. Your sort of uninformed reasoning is the basis for all these actions, and why the US was able to go about it.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people nowadays, especially right wingers, like to talk about the constitution as if it is a list of the rights the government grants the people but it is really just the opposite. The power rests with the people and the constitution is a list of privileges the people allow the government. The bill of rights is simply a forceful followup of the type "if you had any doubts about who holds the real power here, this will make it clear"

So all this talk about the constitution only applies to citizens and/or only applies inside the USA is bull hockey. The constitution applies at all times everywhere to any actions undertaken by the government.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding point 1, perhaps speech should be a basic human right but most foreign governments disagree.

Try buying a copy of Mein Kampf in Germany, discussing the Angola war crimes and nuclear testing in France, the Armenian genocide in Turkey, discussing conversion to Christianity all over the Middle East, and a 100 other things in a 100 other countries. Which countries have as strong a free speech declaration as the American 1st amendment?

Re:No

[Cederic]

our continent-sized nation

You shitting me? You're not even the largest country on the continent.

Re:No

[zifn4b]

speech made not on US soil by non-citizens is covered by the 1A how, exactly?

Here's the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you point out where it says "soil" or "citizen"? Can you also explain how such restrictions are consistent with the phrase "no law"?

Can you explain how one country would guarantee these rights in other countries for non-citizens of said country especially ones where they have laws that are not congruent with these principles? Nice try. It probably sounded good in your head as an abstract idea. In reality, when it comes to world affairs we only have the United Nations and not everyone is a member.

Re:No

[zifn4b]

1. As previous comments reminded you, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right - not reserved purely for US citizens.

Show me the document that codifies this right and that the entire world agreed with it. If that's not the origin of said human right, please describe in more detail the origin. Just saying X exists doesn't make it so.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

The text says `make no law` not `shall guarantee`
big difference. The amendment says what congress cannot do.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

our continent-sized nation

You shitting me? You're not even the largest country on the continent.

The US is roughly the size of Europe and larger than Australia, so it is indeed continent sized.

Re: No

[zifn4b]

The text says `make no law` not `shall guarantee` big difference. The amendment says what congress cannot do.

It makes no difference. You are quoting doctrines of the United States of America. Just because the United States decreed something doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Do you not understand what a country is and how laws made by those countries do not apply to other countries unless there is some sort of treaty between those countries or some mutual adoption of a some type of convention?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, but the law has nothing to do with anyone else but Congress. It's a law that's telling Congress what it can and can't do.

Re: No

[ShanghaiBill]

Just because the United States decreed something doesn't apply to the rest of the world.

That is not what is happening here. The FBI is not going after the Russians, they are going after Facebook, an American company located in California. Can the federal government censor Facebook just because the text being censored was written by non-citizens? According to the US Constitution, they have no authority to do that.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said it applies to the rest of the world? It only applies to us congress. And even then says what they can't do. It says nothing about what other countries can do.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the "and others".

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech, or of religion, or of the press. If anything, it is a side-effect of 1A, which is purely a prohibition on Congress, not a permission to people. There are many restrictions on speech - time, place, and manner; speech by students in schools can be regulated; private entities can regulate speech in their precincts; and more. I would rather that the companies in question regulated the speech for which they provide a forum, using some yet-to-be-invented AI that would look out for that. Of course, there would end up being a Russian yet-to-be-invented AI that would try to circumvent it, and so on and so on. Until we have an AI gap!

Re:No

[KingBenny]

*nod*
if it really has to how about using goodspeak and 'encourage' them to , if they want to, without spending tax money on it
i'm still looking for the meaning of, no not life ... what exactly this thing called 'free market' and that other thing they call 'democracy' actually means cos as far as i know the entries in the dictionary are wrong ??!?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that just a few years ago the government legalized use of propaganda on US citizens here in the US. If they are going after propaganda, they should be going after all propaganda, unless of course Truth is not their agenda but rather manipulating the public in a way THEY see fit.

Re: No

[zifn4b]

Just because the United States decreed something doesn't apply to the rest of the world.

That is not what is happening here. The FBI is not going after the Russians, they are going after Facebook,

All posters of anti-American propaganda via Facebook reside in the United States then?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You're seriously arguing against freedom of speech as a right? People like you are why we can't have nice things.

As for documentation, is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights good enough for you, or do you need a note from God?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you're looking to a document, group of people or a government as the guaranteer or origin of any of your human rights you're screwed from the get go.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Cant speak for other ACs but I'm too lazy to sign up and I see no benefit. Oooo I have a username now. Hooray.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that as far as point 3 goes - there are many cases in which adults accept propaganda as truth when it fits their world view. I have an aunt who swears that all the gays and trans are out to corrupt our youth by taking over the education system. Intelligence has little to do with it, she's just very homophobic and propaganda which supports it she adopts to support her worldview as "evidence".

The younger generations are also more susceptible targets of propaganda - regardless of how well educated our adults are, those who haven't finished their education are very vulnerable.
We look at many of the colleges around the US, like Missouri's state university... or Evergreen State for example - where propaganda turned a large number of students increasingly hostile to the point they were patrolling the campus with weapons, threatening staff and students over their race or beliefs, and interfering with campus police.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

No more anonymous than whoever it is posting under the pseudonym "Dutchmaan". How do we find out your real name?

Re:No

[Archtech]

I have an aunt who swears that all the gays and trans are out to corrupt our youth by taking over the education system.

Have you understood that your disagreement with your aunt is perhaps nothing more than a semantic misunderstanding? Surely you would agree that *some* gays and trans people are determined to *enlighten* the nation's youth and *save them from prejudice* through the education system?

So it really boils down to her use of the term "corrupt" rather than "enlighten". Such misunderstandings are very common indeed - for instance, Socrates was condemned for teaching logic and philosophy, which Athenians chose to see as "corrupting the youth".

How about just laying out the facts for young people and letting them make up their own mind? Gay and trans people are neither particularly bad or particularly good. They are just different in some respects.

Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[bwanagary]

Let's start with our own media and politicians who can say whatever they want without any accountability.  This is the new millennium "boy who cried wolf".  With the deluge of fake news, misinformation, disinformation and unsubstantiated information that we are bombarded with daily people are now disbelieving of anything and everything.  Before we concern ourselves with foreign "information" we need to first get our own house in order.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are now being investigated by the FBI because of foreign propaganda troll, agents will come to your house shortly

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[avandesande]

In other words, maybe they should change the way they do news so that it is distinguishable from fake news.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[jenningsthecat]

Let's start with our own media and politicians who can say whatever they want without any accountability. This is the new millennium "boy who cried wolf". With the deluge of fake news, misinformation, disinformation and unsubstantiated information that we are bombarded with daily people are now disbelieving of anything and everything. Before we concern ourselves with foreign "information" we need to first get our own house in order.

No clue why you were down-modded - what you're saying makes perfect sense to me. I understand that the 'intelligence community' needs to concern itself with foreign influences; but really, as you've pointed out, the more direct, present, day-to-day threat to democracy and social well-being comes from within. Yammering about vague foreign threats is just one more circus act distracting the populace from how they're being lied to and screwed over by corporations and by their own governments.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Mr307]

I miss the old days when we could get some reliable information from the MSM and make up our own minds, rather than this general collection of very politicized opinions with almost no facts.

Nowadays I am getting my info from many many locations and doing my best with it. Seems like a luxury item now to have a news organization actually do some real ground pounding legwork investigative journalism.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

The World is complex. Real news are exhausting to consume. Fake news on the other hand are easier to listen to. The sad fact is, that people do not want real news at all, they want reassurance.

I think asking Facebook to show what the ads were, and make it public who ordered the ads is the right way to go.

2 cents.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's start with the fact that this whole Russia conspiracy theory is pure DNC propaganda. I certainly hope people will show their displeasure next year and vote the bastards out. If they are really smart they'll vote the republicans out too! Sweep out the House dammit! Reduce reelection rates to 0%

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been saying this for 20+ years. Foxnews was a dumpsterfire. Then CNN thought 'hey that looks fun I want to do that too'. A pox on all of them.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice attempt at trolling. But you made it too obvious by using "reliable" and "MSM" in the same sentence.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the media-focused equivalent of "we shouldn't try to cure AIDS while people are still dying of cancer". Just because other issues exist, that's no reason to ignore any one until they can all be solved.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still get pretty good info from MSM.
It isn't near as bad as FOX and Breitbart claims.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Anonymous Coward]

No clue why you were down-modded

I blame his font choice.

Re:Charity (and other things) begin at home.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

He should be down-modded for using a fixed width tag for something other than math/code.

Define foreign propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know where this is headed, classifying what we don't like as trolls and foreign propaganda, even if it doesn't fit the definition. The former happens here all the time.

Re:Define foreign propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Politically correct definitions:

• A "troll" is someone whose opinion disagrees with yours.
• Propaganda is the work product of trolls.
• "Foreign Propaganda" is work product of anonymous trolls. Although nobody can prove the citizenship of an anonymous troll, the "foreign" tag makes people feel better about censoring the speech of others, as it sweeps the 1st amendment issue under the rug.

Re:Define foreign propaganda

[superwiz]

You can preserve anonymity and (mostly) know when someone is posting from a foreign country. Simply put geolocation of each post, but don't put the exact location. Only identify the municipality and the country from which the post was made.

Re: Define foreign propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because sitting on my ass in the Midwest while bouncing through a VPN located in the UK suddenly makes me a foreigner.

And just FYI, the IP my ISP assigned me still shows as being in Canada because they bought a scope from a defunct telco.

Tldr; Geolocation databases are bullshit.

Re: Define foreign propaganda

[superwiz]

Geolocation databases are bullshit.

The more value they provide, the more accurate they'll become. There will be huge financial pressure and a lot of competition to get geolocation right if every post will depend on it. As for VPN's, you can detect that, too. And simply identify it as such. Not much value in hiding behind a VPN if your posts also say that you are posting through a VPN which ends in UK (even though you are most likely posting from Novosibirsk).

Re: Define foreign propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Still hides who he is you fucking idiot.

Re: Define foreign propaganda

[superwiz]

Yeah, the whole point is to preserve anonymity while identifying likely propaganda. I am guessing you already understand that. And that's why you are so frustrated -- you want to destroy anonymity.

Re: Define foreign propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

The more value they provide, the more accurate they'll become.

Ah, if we depend on something unreliable, someone will have to make it reliable, right? Who modded this crap up?

What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we have to worry about our own domestic "propaganda trolls" before we start worrying about the foreign ones. Domestic mainstream media is the worst propaganda worthless shit I've ever seen in my lifetime.

Re:What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Dutchmaan]

...and how do we know you're not the very kind of foreign propaganda troll the article mentions, trying to discredit our own media?

Re:What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[hsthompson69]

...and how do we know that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc aren't the very kind of foreign propaganda trolls the article mentions, trying to discredit our own independent media outlets?

"Everything you know is wrong." - Weird Al

Re: What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Anonymous Coward]

We know you're that troll, because you attack people for being AC yet you won't post your personal information. Stop being a coward and give us your information, Dutchmaan is still anonymous you hypocrite.

Re:What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[msauve]

"Everything you know is wrong." - Weird Al

Young pup. That quote is from "Happy" Harry Cox. Quid Malmborg in Plano.

Re: What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Dutchmaan]

You seem a little triggered there comrade.

Re:What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and how do we know that the entire universe isn't a figment of our imagination, hmm?

Re: What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seen a little confused anonymous coward.

Re: What about CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another troll what does AC mean heterosexual?

Nothing?

[AmiMoJo]

There is nothing they can do? I'm sure they could post a rebuttal, from their official account, and people would share it in response. Facebook already adds "contested" tags to some stories, with links to sources that contest it. Have they asked about being added to that system?

Re:Nothing?

[fustakrakich]

I'm sure they could post a rebuttal...

Yes, that is the only appropriate response to "propaganda". Anything beyond that is excessive.

Re:Nothing?

[gurps_npc]

Not true.

They can add a tag that says "Paid Russian Post" (or Paid Chinese) etc.

Say contested is very different than telling the source.

Re:Nothing?

[superwiz]

This doesn't quite work. Creating thousands or even millions of fake accounts to create a perception of groupthink narrative cannot be countered with 1 authoritative source. The groupthink news can easily smear a few authoritative sources by painting them as propaganda. I was surprised when roughly 5-10 years ago people started mocking the idea of "freedom" on the internet as foolish. It's not so surprising when you realize that foreign propaganda outlets manage to convince their own populations that this is a foolish notion and they use the same methods on domestic US consumption. Identifying location of each post is the only way to counter this smurfing of information bombardment. Imagine if the (now infamous) story about "Macedonian content farmers" was real. If all the posts they made on social media were real, they would have little to no impact. Who would trust a massive flood of posts from Macedonia?

Re:Nothing?

[AmiMoJo]

They don't create many fake accounts. Look at the ones found so far, they rely on hundreds of thousands of useful idiots following them.

Re:Nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words for you: Clinton News Network.

Re:Nothing?

[superwiz]

As far as you know. Newt Gingrich paid for millions for twitter followers when he ran for President (in 2012). And most of his followers were identified as having fake names. So that campaign definitely did have large numbers of fake accounts. Just because some other campaign didn't, doesn't mean that principle does not hold. Groupthink trumps authoritative sources. The only way to counter fake news is to identify the location of the sources or to show that they are posting through the same VPNs.

Re:Nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing. For once I actually agree with you about something...

Re:Nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, this would make those posts much more interesting!

Re:Nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton - really? Man you are obsessed with a failed female politician. Do you have a big picture of her to throw darts at? (Or worse, in your bedroom...)

Or are you referring to the President that was elected almost 20 years ago.

1990s don't wants your political ideas back,even then they were not worth much.

Re:Nothing?

[superwiz]

This will work until Facebook has a false positive on such identification twice. First time it will sow doubt. After the 2nd time the whole mechanism will become a subject for ridicule.

Re:Nothing?

[gurps_npc]

You are suggesting that we don't even call out the bad guys for fear of getting it wrong and making it worse? Would you refuse to name a criminal out of fear of putting an innocent person in jail?

That's stupid. I can see refusing to prosecute for fear of getting it wrong, but refusing to even call them out?

That's true cowardice.

Call them out, take reasonable steps to make sure you get it right, and the net affect will be positive.

Re:Nothing?

[superwiz]

Would you refuse to name a criminal out of fear of putting an innocent person in jail?

That's exactly what every responsible news outlet does. Every perpetrator of a crime is always reported to allegedly have committed a crime until they are convicted. Reporting otherwise would cast aspersions on someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime and who, therefore, is considered innocent under our system of government. Since you simply don't know that someone is paid to hack unless you were present in the meeting in which the money was exchange for the services (and even then you don't know if it was a joke), you can't claim that someone is saying something because they are a paid shill or because they genuinely believe what they are saying. I don't know where you get the whole "hacker" nonsense, btw. Shilling for a cause has been considered hacking.

Meaningless and would lead to...

[Sqreater]

..filtering such content. That means the FBI would get to pass on whether your comments constituted propaganda or not. Just a larger Southern Poverty Law Center list of unacceptable words, comments, sites, and blogs. Since everything expands despite good intentions, this would become oppressive of free speech rapidly. The goal is laudable, the actual result would be China.

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, or maybe just if you're one of a bunch of people spending hundreds of thousands on ads, pretending to be from American political organizations, and operating out of an FSB front in St. Petersburg? Otherwise, it might be time to relax the victim complex.

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Braccae tuae aperiuntur

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal is laudable,

It's really hard to argue the goal is laudable. The whole notion of US Counterintelligence is not to spread "the truth" or "the facts" or to undermine "falsehoods". It's to combat foreign propaganda, no matter how truthful, as a means to spread local propaganda, no matter how false.

the actual result would be China.

The two major difference now between China and the US today is (1) they don't have the tools to do as this suggests or the much more that China regularly engages in (indefinite detentions, executions, etc) and (2) generally US propaganda is a lot more truthful on facts even if it definitely pushes a US agenda over all other things. While I would think (2) might be in part a product of (1), I think the truth is closer to more dumb luck. I mean, if propaganda is nearly as effectively as they suggest, then it should be much more trivial to disguise fiction as fact and state things more in-line with US policy than currently can.

Then again, the argument can always be made that my beliefs on the truthfulness/falseness of things is more due to brainwashing and the last point is actually true. Which goes back to (1) and just how much you can independently verify things yourself or through third parties with possibly polar opposite agendas.

tl;dr You're much too generous on your beliefs on the noble goals of US Intelligence.

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[hsthompson69]

Mod parent up - foreign propaganda can consist of genuine emails, and local propaganda can consist of faked national guard documents.

Truth is not something that is given to you, it is something you need to claw for with great personal effort.

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[superwiz]

Uh, or maybe just if you're one of a bunch of people spending hundreds of thousands on ads, pretending to be from American political organizations, and operating out of an FSB front in St. Petersburg?

ditto

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual result right now is the entire fucking internet is polluted by Putinbots. Including this site.

Re:Meaningless and would lead to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Filtering of content probably happens already. Google has already instituted a filter against may prominent, but non-mainstream, news sites, such as wsws.org, alternet etc.

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

You think maybe we should stop interfering in everybody else's elections before we demand everyone else stop interfering in ours?

Re:Hypocrites

[mean pun]

You think maybe we should stop interfering in everybody else's elections before we demand everyone else stop interfering in ours?

No. You can do both at the same time.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope springs eternal.

Missing continuation...

[YuppieScum]

"Until it does, we'll be silently allowing our freedoms to be manipulated.... by others when it should be just by us."

Re:Missing continuation...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how I read it.

How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see fake news on TV all the time. The worst of the stories get retracted -- eventually. The worst fakers get fired or reassigned (Dan Rather, Brian Williams, etc.) But there is a steady stream of anonymously sourced stories, presented as "news", only to magically disappear when it becomes obvious that somebody made it up.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06...
http://elections.huffingtonpos...

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[mean pun]

Sigh. One more time: those are not examples of fake news, they are examples of reporters trying to report the truth and failing.

Fake news is when you tell a deliberate lie. Fake news is not when you make an honest mistake; it is not selective news; it is not spin; it is when you tell a falsehood, a porky pie, a fib, an invention, a deliberate misstatement, disinformation. Donald Trump seems to be easily confused about this term, and many of his followers as well, but it is really not so difficult. Not true and you know it == Fake News.

And how do you say that you don't like a news item? Well, you just say you don't like the news item. I admit it is quite a mouthful in a Twitter message, but hey, that's Twitter for you.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news is when you tell a deliberate lie. Fake news is not when you make an honest mistake

Rather's lies about Bush were deliberate, not an honest mistake.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you look at those links? They ARE examples of fake news.

My favourite of them is CNN reporting that US citizens looking at Wikileaks is illegal.
Fake, known fake when they said it, and they kept with it.

They also had the one about Comey listed, where they had "information" about what Comey was going to say. They didn't, the literally made it up and knew it.

When they make up news they hope is true, but know its not, that is the DEFINITION of fake news. CNN is it, by definition.
Still waiting for the proof Trump colluded with Russia to leak DNC emails. I've seen proof Trump didn't collude with Russia, and very convincing proof the DNC email leak was an inside job. That story was fake from day 1, they knew it, and ran with it for ELEVEN FUCKING MONTHS.

Yes, CNN especially doesn't care if what they report is true or not. Don't even care.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Uberbah]

Wingnut lies about Rather were deliberate, not an honest mistake.

FTFY. Even if the Air Guard memos were faked - which were a fraction of the case that Bush skipped out on his Guard commitments - the source only forged the truth. And this was a source, not something that Rather pulled out of his ass - and we don't see wingnuts demanding that every media person who ever covered Bush's claims on Iraq be fired, as those were indisputably lies.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Uberbah]

The worst fakers get fired or reassigned (Dan Rather, Brian Williams, etc.)

Fakiest fakest fake false equivalence. Rather reported on a story made by a producer, who (as a fraction of the case that Bush went AWOL on his Air Guard commitments) included memos from a source. Memos that, even if forged, were accurate representations of the base commander's thoughts on Bush.

Contrast that to all the media reporters and pundits who breathlessly repeated Bush's claims on Saddam's WMD's, which were built on more bullshit than you can find at a cattle feedlot. Not one of the Rather haters demanded any of those people be fired.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing how horrible these GOPers are, that the only evidence of them being bad has to be made up. You would think you could just pull anything they did ever and it would be proof of how bad they are, but you don't you literally make shit up and claim its the truth.

If you can't tell the truth from made up shit, you are even dumber than the average liberal. You probably shouldn't vote or follow politics. You don't have the intelligence to follow it correctly. When lied to and its proven to be a lie, you still can't figure out why you are the only one still saying its true. Thats because everyone else is smarter than you.

Like I said, you are very dumb. Your life must be difficult since you haven't realized this yet.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wingnut lies about Rather were deliberate, not an honest mistake.

FTFY. Even if the Air Guard memos were faked - which were a fraction of the case that Bush skipped out on his Guard commitments - the source only forged the truth. And this was a source, not something that Rather pulled out of his ass - and we don't see wingnuts demanding that every media person who ever covered Bush's claims on Iraq be fired, as those were indisputably lies.

Ummm, when a source gives you a DEMONSTRABLY FORGED document, that source has zero credibility. Nothing they claim can be trusted.

You know where "fake but accurate" comes from?

"Fake but accurate" comes from CBS's legal department - seems Texas libel law says fake isn't libel only if you believe it's true.

In other words, CBS was forced by the evidence to admit they knew the documents were fake, but because they thought they were accurate, CBS wasn't liable for libel.

In other words, they de facto admitted that Dan Rather is the ultimate purveyor of fake news - literally.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wingnut lies about Rather were deliberate, not an honest mistake.

FTFY. Even if the Air Guard memos were faked - which were a fraction of the case that Bush skipped out on his Guard commitments - the source only forged the truth. And this was a source, not something that Rather pulled out of his ass - and we don't see wingnuts demanding that every media person who ever covered Bush's claims on Iraq be fired, as those were indisputably lies.

AKA the "Uberbah believes demonstrably fake documents."

In a related story, an anencephalic howler monkey learned how to use a computer. He did not produce Shakespeare.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Uberbah]

AKA the "Uberbah believes demonstrably fake documents."

1) They were never demonstrated to be fake

2) Even if they were forged, it was a forgery of the base commander's actual views

3) And even then Rather had nothing to do with the production of the report, most of it not based on memos from the base commander

4) When are you fuckheads going to demand every media person who repeated Bush's Iraq lies be fired

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Uberbah]

Ummm, when a source gives you a DEMONSTRABLY FORGED document

Wingnuts questioning a document doesn't mean it's a forgery - just ask Obama's birth certificate. The authenticity of the documents one way or the other was never proven, and never will be as the source provided copies, not originals.

"Fake but accurate"

Who cares? If the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives turns out to be a forgery of the original - but one that is completely accurate - does that mean it shouldn't be quoted?

comes from CBS's legal department

The one that was determined to toss Rather out the door? Golly gee!

In other words, they de facto admitted that Dan Rather is the ultimate purveyor of fake news - literally.

Literally more bullshit than a cattle feedlot. You wingnuts have spent over a decade fucking that chicken but DGAF that Bush did in fact go AWOL on his Guard service, only to run around accusing anyone who questioned the Iraq war as a coward.

And, you're the third AC to skate right on past the fact that none of you fuckwits has ever called for anyone to resign for repeating Bush's lies over Iraq. Which are proven.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

AKA the "Uberbah believes demonstrably fake documents."

1) They were never demonstrated to be fake

Yeah, they were written in a proportionally-spaced font that's the default in Microsoft Word using terminology from the 1990s military.

But they weren't fake.

Keep digging, you dumbass howler monkey.

2) Even if they were forged, it was a forgery of the base commander's actual views

Says who?

The guy who forged the documents?

Nice to know you have a room-temperature IQ. In Celsius.

3) And even then Rather had nothing to do with the production of the report, most of it not based on memos from the base commander

If he had nothing to do with reading fake news based on forged documents, why didn't he denounce those that provided him with news based on forged documents? Why does he continue to defend his reading of forged documents as the TROOF!!!?

4) When are you fuckheads going to demand every media person who repeated Bush's Iraq lies be fired

Great, now your dragging in Iraq. Can't win defending Dan rather, so you try to muddy the waters.

You're the brainless monkey regurgitating crap defending the worst case of fake news ever.

Just to make your day even better: PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!! BWAA HAA HAAA!!!!!

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Zemran]

When Bush said that Saddam had WMDs and could use them to attack in 45 minutes he was fully aware that that was a lie. In various accounts defenders of countries that are attacked by the US are called terrorists when they are merely defending their country. This and loads more is fake news by the US government. The US creates the most fake news and does it to effect elections in other countries for example Ukraine. Most people in the US actually believe that Russia invaded Crimea when this was very clearly a lie. Ukraine is far worse now than it was before. I have been there many times and was there last week. It has suffered greatly from the coup that was driven by US lies. Do you even remember that girl that was hired to lie to congress to get the first Iraq war started? We now know 100% that that was a deliberate lie.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Uberbah]

Yeah, they were written in a proportionally-spaced font

All of which was able to be done on typewriters made in the 70's. The rest of your post is continued fucking of a decade old dead chicken.

4) When are you fuckheads going to demand every media person who repeated Bush's Iraq lies be fired

Great, now your dragging in Iraq. Can't win defending Dan rather, so you try to muddy the waters.

Wingnut translator: "don't highlight the fact we are hypocritical, brain dead partisan hacks who created a standard that applies to Dan Rather, and no one but Dan Rather! Certainly not Fox News, which would have had to fire every person who worked for the organization if reporting false information was really a problem for us!"

You're as bad as the Hillbots who go on defending her private email server, right after being shown video of her complaining about the Bush Administration's use of private email. You guys hang out for coffee and doughnuts?

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Uberbah]

Amazing how horrible these GOPers are, that the only evidence of them being bad has to be made up. You would think you could just pull anything they did ever and it would be proof of how bad they are, but you don't you literally make shit up and claim its the truth.

I constantly call out Russiagate for the unhinged McCarthyism it is, so in your attempt to call bullshit here you only got it all over your face. Now, back to the topic, it's a fact that Bush skipped out on his Air Guard service, which in itself was a way to get out of Vietnam. I wouldn't GAF about that, as the occupation of Vietnam was a crime against humanity that killed millions, if Bushco hadn't gone around smearing anyone who questioned the illegal Afghanistan and Iraq wars as cowards.

Re:How is this any worse than domestic propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak to Brian Williams, or any of the sited links but I can tell you I was an employee of a company Rather went after. His 60 minutes story was basically full of lies. Some could be attributed to disgruntled ex-employees out for revenge, but many were whole cloth untruths spoken for the purpose of sensationalizing the story and getting ratings and a good story promotion snippet. No way Rather didn't know.

No

[chispito]

Thanks Betteridge.

Perception management

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would enable the FBI to identify perception management operations"

So...they want to identify social media companies themselves?

Oh that's right, its only those operations that don't manage the perception they like.

Hold on a second...

[Gravis Zero]

Legit question: have we been doing the exact same thing to other nations? If so, this is really a problem of your own making. Either way, sanctions are an option but if you are doing the exact same thing, they are going to be uninclined to comply.

Re:Hold on a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably yes, but it is their problem (or at least a separate problem). So let's concentrate this topic.

Isn't most of it propaganda these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I grew up with my parents watching the nightly news and it basically put out there the story for you the viewer to come to whatever conclusion you have on the story. You were never provided only a one sided story, or one that favored a ideology or political party. It never tried to skew any facts or exclude them.
Do I think sites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have a obligation to stop this? I do not see how they can effectively, anymore then stopping some other questionable content that get's out there. Its now up to the you the viewer to decipher what is accurate information and reject this other noise.

Re:Isn't most of it propaganda these days?

[HornWumpus]

When and where was that? Seriously, it was way before my time, and I'm old. Were you watching TV or news reals? Couldn't have been TV.

Education

[Areyoukiddingme]

Gee, maybe the powers that be will actually have to encourage the training of critical thought in the population at large, so people can approach the marketplace of ideas with some discernment.

Naaah. They'd much rather have sheeple they can trivially manipulate themselves. If they get derailed by some foreign power's propaganda, they can be put right again by doubling down on their own propaganda. I'm sure it'll be fine.

Re:Education

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with critical thinking is that it is really hard.
It requires substantial mental effort.
When people are bombarded with information at the current rate, it is unreasonable to expect that the whole population is capable and willing to distinguish between real and fake news.

For an election, it is enough to influence a small portion of the population to steer the outcome.

2 cents

Re:Education

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd much rather have sheeple they can trivially manipulate themselves.

Spotted the whacko conspiracy theorist (who probably doesn't even know how deluded he is).

Re:Education

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd much rather have sheeple they can trivially manipulate themselves.

Spotted the whacko conspiracy theorist (who probably doesn't even know how deluded he is).

Yeah, you're right.

Colleges and other academic institutions would never try to shut down speakers simply because a bunch of loud obnoxious children threaten a violent tantrum.

what else is new?

[doctorvo]

The bureau is now faced with huge private companies, like Facebook and Twitter, which are ostensibly neutral and have no professional or ethical obligation to vet the material they distribute.

So... just like all our other media then?

Should Congress force US citizen scholarization

[Anonymous Coward]

required for maturing an educated political opinion?

Nothing new

[Dan East]

This is nothing new. The only difference is modern technology and connectivity makes the reach and impact greater. There have always been propaganda in the form of shortwave radio broadcasts, printed text (leaflets, magazines, books), one on one contact and even television. It's just that in the past a person had to more actively seek out these communications to be exposed to them. Now it is coming through in our more normal day-to-day lives.

The problem is that the bulk of the Western public is naive and takes too many things at face value. There's an innocence, if you will. A big part of that is not having been (too terribly) deceived by government to the point it led to things like mass imprisonment or death.

Misinformation and gullibility is rampant on social media and it needs to be addressed more fundamentally, but unfortunately social media represents one of the truest forms of democracy, and the results shed light on the fact that the "average" person is simply not very intelligent when it comes to certain matters.

For example, the people constantly sharing Facebook posts that say crap like "We ordered too many luxury RVs and they are last year's model so we have to give them away", and all the various permutations thereof ( http://www.snopes.com/luxury-r... ). It really takes a special kind of naivety to share something like that.

The one that is particularly annoying to me at this moment are people sharing pictures of this traffic jam from Rita (Texas, 2005) claiming it is from the Irma hurricane hitting Florida right now (and then it typically includes other stuff like "this is why so many people have to shelter in place and not evacuate"): http://www.hurricanescience.or... That is a much more subtle type of misinformation, but it is still "fake news".

So no, in answer to the question, we don't need government / corporations / etc trying to protect the American people from foreign propaganda. We need to educate the populace in a more general way to identify and filter out manipulative "fake news" and other garbage of the sort.

Re:Nothing new

[dgatwood]

So no, in answer to the question, we don't need government / corporations / etc trying to protect the American people from foreign propaganda. We need to educate the populace in a more general way to identify and filter out manipulative "fake news" and other garbage of the sort.

Heh. Good luck with that. We've been trying for over twenty years, and Fox News and MSNBC are still on the air.

First Amendment

[doctorvo]

Just a reminder:

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

That isn't qualified by saying "except for foreign political views the US government doesn't approve of".

The First Amendment is as much a guarantee to be able to receive information freely as it is to speak freely.

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree! The government spy agencies shouldn't be in the business of policing what other people say.

And they are the worst offenders in the rest of the world. Hillary took lots of credit for the Arab spring for example. Of course that was a CIA aided operation. What right did we have to interfere in those governments?

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

> What right did we have to interfere in those governments?

The only right that matters in the end... the right of might.

Re: First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hillary took lots of credit for the Arab spring for example. Of course that was a CIA aided operation."

Sure thing Ivan.

Re: First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

You're weird. We should be proud of the fact that we helped put down the Arab dictatorships, despite the fact that it was against our own interests.
Democratic governments in the Muslim countries would be a really bad thing for the US, but supporting them is the right thing to do anyway.

Re:First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off back to Moscow Boris.

Re: First Amendment

[Uberbah]

We should be proud of the fact that we helped put down the Arab dictatorships

Like when we sold weapons to the Bahrain dictatorship to brutally put down their Arab Spring protests, while at the very same time bombing Gaddafi to protect his Arab Spring protestors?

The problem is ...

[fahrbot-bot]

... some people want to learn the truth and some want to validate their own beliefs. The former will continue research the things, the latter will be happy with what they find. "Fake News" is a problem for the former to weed through, but is the answer for others. Intervention and/or identification may help some, but won't make any difference to others - or may make them hold on to their beliefs more tightly. Some people have their identities built around what they believe, regardless of the truth. You can't fix that with a warning label.

Re:The problem is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if someone disagrees with what you call truth it is not a problem. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with speaking or hearing the truth and every thing to do with basic human rights. Who are you to tell someone who wants to believe lies that they can't. Do you own them? No, they can believe fake news all they want and its not your right to sensor the information they want to receive. Regardless of what side you stand on right, left, middle, American, Mexican, or Russian, fuck you for implying that just because people form their own opinions independent of what you call truth that they are a problem and should have some form of intervention. Now carry on reading your fake news for validation of your stupid world view, you won't see me try and interfere with it.

Should be forced to allow all political views.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter bans popular, but "offensive" accounts.

YouTube is creating a system to isolate "bad" videos (commenting disallowed, won't find in search, possibly can't be embedded/linked). Jordan Peterson lost his YouTube *and* GMail account because someone thought he made offensive videos (complaints eventually got it back, but what about people without clout?).

These companies have made open platforms for the public at large to use them. It would be simple enough to say that anyone who makes offers such a service to the public for free will have to comply with the principles of freedom of thought. (EULAs or Terms of Service won't get them out of this since those are contracts and the terms of contracts are set/enforced by the government.) They can ban porn and commercial spam, fine, but expressing unpopular sentiments should be allowed.

MSM Is Perceived As Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick clamp down on the internet! Free speech must only be allowed when its to OUR tune. God forbid we actually educate our citizens on what is really going on so they won't be so easily persuaded by the enemy. This here is when the internet goes to shit folks, when it challenges those in authority. It was a good run while it lasted.

Or

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid people can just stop using social media.

when others do...the exceptionalism

[quantic_oscillation7]

lol...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://web.stanford.edu/class...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/t...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Congress Should Define Free Speech...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress should focus on defining the relationships amongst

A) Human Rights
B) Free Speech
C) Federal Laws
D) International Internet

I mean, if you want to talk about what the Should be doing. Which of course has nothing to do at all with what they Are and Will be doing.

#422224

Resurrect HUAC?

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Are they suggesting that the US resurrect The House Un-American Activities Committee?

Re:Resurrect HUAC?

[fustakrakich]

*cough* Patriot Act

Re:Resurrect HUAC?

[VeryFluffyBunny]

:) Wish I had mod points

This could be interesting

[Kormoran]

Before 2008 nobody in the US gov cared about foreign propaganda. Now they worry about people saying things they don't like. That's the same thing USSR was worried about all the time since post-WW2 at least... people must not speak freely, or they will tell things the Nomenklatura cannot allow to pass over as truth.

IMHO, this means that US propaganda (yes, there is) is not working anymore. American people, or at least a significant part of it, has stopped thinking what the deep state (and the media, and the elites) wants they to think. The writing is on the wall. Now the million dollar question is: what american people is going to think? What will they held as truth, what will they value most, what will they ask to their government?

Re:This could be interesting

[Max_W]

What is interesting it that people, who in the USSR were the most severe hard-liners, who uncompromisingly protected the official communist ideas, became again the official line supporters. Even if it meant changing political orientation by 180 degrees.

It is so called Status Quo Bias, a social and psychological phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Eye Of The Beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see what I see?
Truth is an offense
Your silence for your confidence
Do you hear what I hear?
Doors are slamming shut
Limit your imagination, keep you where they must
Do you feel what I feel?
Bittering distress
Who decides what you express?
Do you take what I take?
Endurance is the word
Moving back instead of forward seems to me absurd
Doesn’t matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If it’s done just how I say
Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Choice is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech
Speech is words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception
Do you fear what I fear?
Living properly
Truths to you are lies to me
Do you choose what I choose?
More alternatives
Energy derives from both the plus and negative
Do you need what I need?
Boundaries overthrown
Look inside, to each his own
Do you trust what I trust?
Me, myself and I
Penetrate the smoke screen, I see through the selfish lie
Doesn’t matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If it’s done just how I say
Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Choice is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech
Speech is words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception
Do you know what I know?
Your money and your wealth
Your silence just to hear yourself
Do you want what I want?
Desire not a thing
I hunger after independence, lengthen freedom’s ring
Doesn’t matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If it’s done just how I say
Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Choice is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech
Speech is words that they will bend
Freedom no longer frees you
Doesn’t matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If it’s done just how I say

During the cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

During the cold war, we fought marxist propaganda in this country.. Today, marxists are talking about fighting anti-marxist propaganda 'trolls'...for our sakes of course.

For a more rational discussion on the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go here. The Slashdot crowd is whack with their Russia conspiracy theories! The democrats lost because they suck.

Re:For a more rational discussion on the issue

[Pinky's Brain]

Slashdot is fine, anywhere where free speech and relative anonymity (ie. it takes more than a minute to dox someone) exist political incorrectness has no lack of representation, nor does it need Putin.

I maybe lose a little more karma than I gain by being offensively politically incorrect, but it's pretty even handed.

DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[c0y]

The network we built to survive nuclear war has been weaponized against us and DARPA is giving out grants now to study how its child turned into a killer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

Russia is trying to incite civil war and very few people see how. Their end game is not a glorious Trump presidency but a demoralized and ineffectual United States that no longer intrudes in their sphere of influence.

We're a nation of useful idiots now. Our partisan hatred makes us more willing believers in the alleged atrocities of our enemies. Credulity is vulnerability. Patriotism now requires skepticism of atrocities by political opponents and criticism of real misbehavior by our allies that feeds weaponized narratives.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah Russia blah blah blah. People give the Russians WAY to much credit. Russia ain't got shit on the American propaganda machine that runs worldwide. If anything the Russians are just trying to use the tried and true methods the US has been using for decades.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Pinky's Brain]

Russia is trying to internally destabilize the EU and US, I doubt they are aiming for civil war in countries with nukes though.

On the other hand globalists tried to push the EU into incorporating an economic basket case for geopolitical reasons and against EU citizen's economic interests, like most EU expansions in recent history, helping kick all this shit off.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Anonymous Coward]

The US was not designed to be an empire. Freedom of speech is not compatible with imperial government, which is what we have right now. Demoralization is a done deal; partisan hatred is implicit in the division of the populace the every imperial government uses to keep a people distracted and powerless.

If there were any real choice in the matter, which there is not at this point, the US populace could be asked to choose to enjoy either its once-traditional but now long-abandoned freedoms (among which the 1st and the 4th), or the alternative, which is to run the empire until the national heart bursts at last in misery and exhaustion.

It would have been so simple to let our oceans and friendly neighbors protect us, and continued as a peaceable member of the planet, intervening only as necessary to bring balance to the force. Instead, the US has chosen the dark side: to operate on the model of the "Galactic Empire" model, an empire under the forms of democracy.

Now naturally this is the opinion of a peon, someone without the resources to participate in the imperial government. The threshold for that is control of about $1 billion per annum of economic activity, usually via control of corporate entities that are so large as to be "untouchable" by what is called, laughably, "the rule of law." And seriously, as long as Saudi Arabia is considered an ally, and Russia, for some reason, is considered an enemy, nobody outside of the corridors of power, where people are consistently acting on some kind of basis to continue that policy decade after decade, can presume make sense of what the US does in the world.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[c0y]

I found this fake antifa manual circulating among US civil war / confederate history buffs in the days before Charlottesville. They are livid and eating up the red meat of each new outrage.

http://imgur.com/gallery/BcZOg?

Someone went to a lot of work making that, and they fully understand right-wing paranoid fantasies. This is too much effort for so many pages of such poor satire. It's not designed to convert/convince but to incite latent fear and hate. If that isn't the Kremlin thumbing its nose at us, then it is someone who wants us to think it is Kremlin. The manual was posted to imgur about a week after Trump signed new sanctions.

We also see evidence of Russian incitement in the troll factory activity on twitter that is more easily linked to their networks.

https://www.dailykos.com/stori...

The most useful idiots are Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Cernovich, who are all pushing the idea of a new civil war. We don't need help hating each other, but we are getting it. (Donald Trump is more than a useful idiot. Since he has the full briefings, we have to consider him overtly complicit in the campaign to incite political violence.)

We need to rewrite the rules for Poe's law. The Charlottesville corollary is that satire of fundamentalism provides cover for propaganda and false flag action. The most dangerous weapon in information warfare is one that we never see as a weapon.

Given that the antifa manual is a parody of leftist fundamentalism, it says something about the dangerous political divide that a segment of people can't tell the difference any more.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Pinky's Brain]

There a lot of kids and people who never grew up on the right with a lot of time on their hands, blaming Putin for this bit of larping is a stretch.

If you want it to look authentic instead of clear satire you wouldn't put that bit of not distributing to cis white males for a start, they are the majority of Antifa after all.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Anonymous Coward]

you read that fake manual and think Russians did it, I read that and immediately think 4chan

The repetition of Russia Russia Russia is turning into a George Soros type of thing, but for the left

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we just going to ignore the fact that Antifa is a real leftist group that has been assaulting people regularly?

People are getting sick of racist leftists en masse. We know what's been going on in South Africa, despite the news ignoring it constantly. We're not happy with attempts to suppress our culture. That doesn't mean I'm going to embrace the racist nonsense at Voat, just that I'm not going to give leftists a pass for being racist or assume that they'll just stop if we put up with a little more.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be out of the loop. Please explain your last sentence.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Anonymous Coward]

judging from the from the comments on the site

"Jesse106617 ptsAug 8
Right from the title page it's got to be satire. "Do not distribute to any cis white males non-PoC non-LGBTQ peoples a.k.a. fascists."

1 reply
JamezVerusaum via Android14 pts22 days
Oh yeah, that seems legit. Totally not contrived. -eyeroll'

McJohnson8810 pts21 days
This "manual" is about as legit as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

they are not "eating it up as you say" . You sir are full of shit, I demand satisfaction.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Pinky's Brain]

The majority of Antifa (a loose assembly of people who protest anyone they perceive as fascists) consists of white people born biologically male who exclusively fuck women (ie. cis white males). So when an "Antifa manual" says "do not distribute to cis white males" you know apriori it's a joke.

Re:DARPA grant needed to fix previous DARPA grant

[Uberbah]

Russia is trying to incite civil war and very few people see how.

Maybe because it's the most deranged conspiracy theory since the idea Obama's parents knew in the 60's that he'd be president, and planted a fake birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper to back up the Kenyan's fake birth certificate?

The story goes that Putin was crafty enough to dug up dirt (which all happens to be true) on Hillary (who was already campaigning on shooting down Russian jets in Syria) and gave it to Wikileaks to torpedo her campaign. Yet Putin, while being that crafty, was at the same time dumb as a sack of hammers by colluding with Trump, because reasons. Which means the CIA and the NSA would have known all about this collusion.

Which means President Hillary - it was still her election to lose right up until she didn't bother campaigning in the Rust Belt - would have known about it too. Which means this entire storyline is nothing but Swiftboating projection from partisan tribalists. Interfering with other countries governments and elections, both overtly and covertly, is what you do to the rest of the world.

Whatever

[nehumanuscrede]

Congress can't even keep their own in house processes corruption free.

Get back to me about dictating what everyone else is doing when they get their own shit together.

Only if they're communists

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they're communists. Supply of not-communist foreign propaganda trolls means there is a demand and so it's just the FREE MARKET in action as ordained by GOD.
--
roman_mir

What law is being broken?

[petes_PoV]

there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation

And since it is not illegal, why should they want the power to try?

There are no laws apart from fraud, libel and slander that dictate that everything everyone says has to be true. And if there was, then no politician would last 5 minutes before having their ass hauled off to jail.

The FBI seem to have created their own "issue" here, defined it as bad and then decided that someone else should have the duty and the obligation to fix it for them. Well, that isn't how democracies work. If something is illegal, have the law enforcement deal with it. If it isn't illegal then either make it so, or let is go.

But trying to prevent people saying stuff, just because you don't like it, is not the way to go.

Re:What law is being broken?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which makes it illegal to not register as a foreign agent. So this sort of political propaganda distribution may be illegal.

From wiki:

"The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances."

Did Facebook register?

Re:What law is being broken?

[Anonymous Coward]

Power lost, you want to regain.

No

[rsilvergun]

but our CIA should. It's painfully clear our elections were substantially interfered with by a hostile foreign power. Even if you like the results you should still be wary of that.

And free speech is fine as long as it's out in the open. We used to have laws about that until our judiciary gutted them. Like it or not a substantial amount of the electorate is easily swayed. Even if you're not one of those people you'll get dragged down by them and their votes.

Umm, get a warrant??

[Anonymous Coward]

Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this "fake news," there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale...

Is this activity illegal?

If yes, the FBI can go to a court and get a warrant from a judge. Facebook, twitter, and all the rest will happily comply with a warrant (or in many cases, even without a warrant).

If this activity isn't illegal, then suck it up.

But Congress could pass legislation that requires social media companies to cooperate with counterintelligence in the same ways they do with law enforcement.

Given everything that Ed Snowden disclosed, US counterintelligence doesn't need any additional resources - they already have all this info.

Better solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than going only to investigate. Why can't congress make some law to forbid lying?
That way there will be no "fake news" no "propaganda" ever.

No, Duh

[Greyfox]

Where's the fun in that? I mean, it's the perfect opportunity to create an over-priced federal agency to do that, or justify the budget of an existing one. And set up government servers at social media sites to collect information about all the users and what they're posting. Think there's not a precedent for that? Ever hear of those secret NSA comms closets with all the major telcos? Google it. Anywhoo, so you set up your new federal office, are now listening to all traffic on all the social media networks (Except Google+, because seriously, who uses that?) and you can leverage that 2002 law forbidding foreign nationals from influencing elections. Which is not unconstitutional because the constitution only applies to USA citizens (That's already been well established in Gitmo cases.) Ohh yeah... Christmas is coming early to the Government this year! Thanks, Russians!

Scary

[easyTree]

Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this "fake news," there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale.

It must be worrying when your own propaganda machine is being neutralised. The horror.

No. And stop beating the dead (Russian) horse.

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all - pot calling the kettle black about propaganda. The US government and the mainstream US media are the kings of propaganda (Iraq invasion anyone?)

Anyway, the "Russians hacked the elections" campaign continues reincarnating. First it was hacking into the DNC servers (still no evidence), then it was the power plant (didn't happen), then the Jeff Sessions meetings with the Russian ambassador (which were legit, as far as anything that guy does is legit which is not very far), then there was the meeting with that lawyer who promised to give the Trump campaign some dirt on Clinton (which could well be in breach of the law, but collusion with a foreign power to subvert elections it is not).

Now there's this. Are there Russian government propaganda bots on Facebook? I kind of doubt it. But even suppose that the Russian government ran a bunch of ads. We are told that "The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn't specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate. Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum." - so they ran some ads, or posts or whatever, implying Black Lives Matter and then opposite ads or posts implying BLM are lawless reverse-racists looters. Never mind that this sounds kind of dumb, but, frankly - so what?

US is already a police state

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is already a police state in which:

1. Policeman are routinely armed with deadly weapons even when not sent out to confront some armed gang etc.
2. Policemen usually get away with summary execution of citizens with no cause even when caught on tape.
3. About 1% of the population is incarcerated at any given time
4. The central government can detain people incognito, holding them in isolated (sometimes secret) compounds out of the sovereign territory and deny them procedural legal rights (PATRIOT act and other practices)
5. The police can (only in some states?) confiscate personal property upon arrest for certain offenses, before sentencing, conviction or (AFAIK) even charges being filed
6. The central government records much of the population's online communications; not clear how much, but we do know from the Snowden disclosures that most email and social network interaction is recorded, indexed and later used

There's probably a lot more, but, really - is this not enough?

Re:US is already a police state

[Plus1Entropy]

No, it's not enough.

People who came to the United States from actual police states (like my father who grew up in Egypt) would be able to describe the differences to you in minute detail. The fact that secret policemen are not breaking your door down this instant just for posting your comment is all the proof you need.

Although I want to say that I agree with all the specific points you made, but I don't think we're that far gone yet.

Re:US is already a police state

[Anonymous Coward]

but you must be ever vigilant to not falter in that first step .... for the slope is wet with slip

Don't we as citizens bare some responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't we as citizens bare responsibility for what we choose to believe or not believe? Shouldn't we be smart enough to take questionable sources - such as social media trolls - with a very large grain of salt?

Furthermore, knowing that we as humans have a bias towards believing things that match our world view, shouldn't we be responsible for educating ourselves on what is true, even if that doesn't align with our biases?

No one can manipulate us unless we let them. Don't be lazy or complacent - or you hand the propagandists your brain on a platter.

Re:Don't we as citizens bare some responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the modern man even believe in resistance anymore?

Fire your ideologists and hire talented people

[Anonymous Coward]

It is funny how american humanitarian organizations funded decedents who brain washed Russian society over internet for over 2 decades and now when Russian society consolidated its opinion against all that crap they poured on them, they are not capable to deal with Russian opinion anymore. The fact is that Russian opinion makes traction in American segment of internet and wins, it only means that American ideologists loose shamefully. They cannot withstand counter opinion anymore, they are not qualified for that job anymore, they just want to shut up everybody who disagree. It is absolutely the same as prohibiting hacking over internet. If you are not capable to develop secure system via hiring the most talented engineers and providing them with highest possible paycheck, don't blame others when you proudly develop crap-ware and engineers who stayed without job just laugh at you hack you. Here is the same situation, mass media "specialists" are like a caste now of the ones who consider themselves as public opinion makers, social engineers and etc, but in fact they are not capable to win on its own battleground in america and the only counter measure they can undertake is to prohibit others ability of free speech by law enforcement. Shame on you.

All the Nazi and Communist and Fascists here

[modmans2ndcoming]

Sorry, If you support the ability of a foreign government to affect our elections via propaganda then you are a fucking traitor.

Re:All the Nazi and Communist and Fascists here

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry,

If you support the ability of a foreign government to affect our elections via propaganda then you are a fucking traitor.

Nonsense. Publishing propoganda is a totally legitimate and reasonably fair way for foreign governments to attempt to influence us. Hacking voting machines crosses the line. But if they want to publish news stories about how the US should adopt policies that are more in line with their interests than that is great. I encourage everyone to fight it out in the marketplace of ideas. Are you suggesting that we should ban citizens in foreign countries from having blogs? Or is it only a problem for you if it false statements and it is put our by a government? If so, then, a good first step might be taking away our president's twitter account. I don't think people should have a problem with Russia for putting out fake news stories. The thing they did that was "interfering with the election" was allegedly putting out real news stories about Hillary's emails. And actually publishing the stories wasn't the problem. The problem was if they hacked into the Democratic Party to get them.
     

Re:All the Nazi and Communist and Fascists here

[Anonymous Coward]

did your balls finally drop? how long have you been wanting to take a "tough" stance on something lol, your words ring hollow, like dried out bullshit

Basis in LAW

[Anonymous Coward]

What law prohibits foreign propaganda?

Re:Basis in LAW

[Anonymous Coward]

in what country?

False Advertising

[mi]

For better or worse, it has long been established, that False Advertising is not protected by the Amendment.

Most social media companies promise — explicitly or implicitly — interaction with other people. Or, when it is with businesses or other organizations, the accounts are clearly marked as such — or are supposed to be under the terms and conditions of the usage. For example, this line from Facebook's Terms:

1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

implicitly promises, that the company will fight people/entities lying...

A company's failure to enforce such terms should be interpreted as a failure to deliver the service it promised its advertisers and other users. It can — and should — be punished for the breach. No special laws are necessary even — we already have them...

This is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is any good propaganda, there's nothing to rebute - it is 100% true. Modern progapanda is about what to focus on and how to tell it.

Examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we have some examples, please? I'm reading about "Russian fake news" every day, but I don't think I actually knowingly saw any.

blame the dumbass 'murkins

[Anonymous Coward]

if only social media wasn't 'murkin based.

American paid trolling is a way bigger problem

[Rujiel]

... because your and my taxes are paying for it. Paying, to be lied to.

Re:American paid trolling is a way bigger problem

[Gallomimia]

The police investigated themselves for using excessive force and found no wrongdoing.

Check your privilege

[Anonymous Coward]

But how many people want to listen to a xenophobic racist who hates the First Amendment?

First Get rid of the AWAN SPY RING

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want the representatives doing a damn thing until this is fully addressed.

I can hear those trains of justice coming mother fuckers.

Our media routinely discredit theirselves

[Rujiel]

If someone's not paying you already, you probably could make some money playing dumb like this--for example, Israel or Monsanto would gladly pay you for your writing service.

Re: How is this any worse than domestic propaganda

[Rujiel]

"they are examples of reporters trying to report the truth and failing." Bullllllshit. You are either paid, or one of the most delusional people I've ever seen regarding the media

Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood is the world's largest generator of propaganda. Maybe start there? Unless there is some sort of USAian exceptionalism at work?

Hurricane Awan - be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

I know your looking out from hurricane Irma, but there's also Hurricane Awan in house and centcom and state dept.

What does freedom mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this mean? "Until it does, we'll be silently allowing our freedoms to be manipulated...."

Simply living in peace, is NOT freedom. Making war to make peace, is also, not "freedom", or all war would be "freedom", as if the end of a war itself was peace.
Reading news without having to worry about it being false or hyped, or misrepresented, or being propaganda, is NOT freedom.
Simply being free, is NOT freedom.

Oddly enough, "freedom" is what is left, after the government tells you what not to do, or otherwise work against, people doing whatever they might want to do.
Freedom to commit murder, is not a "freedom" because it isn't allowed. Being free to commit murder, is another thing, not having to do with "freedom", ofc, if you yourself are to assign the meaning of "freedom" to things, then anything might be considered "freedom", which would be silly in a way.

"Freedom" seems to be this hyped up word with no inherent meaning, or highly relativistic, being generally understood as a positively laden word. Also maybe abused as if being some synonym to the idea of there being "rights", which would be partially true if being explicit, but false, when anything "free" is deemed a "freedom" just like that.

There will always be a difference of perspective, between an individual and some authority, with respect to what is and isn't deemed a "freedom", but the general idea of "freedom" can never be true, because the very idea of a "freedom" is either something quite relativistic (per point of view), or something quite authoritative, and possibly just a rhetorical device to put a positive spin on a subject matter in terms of fielding a political opinion of sorts, to talk about rights in a metaphorical way, as if some general state of the world could ever be attributed to there being a "freedom" there in any case, just become something "is" there, like peace for example.

I don't like how the very idea of "freedom" either doesn't really mean anything when being a term being imposed by somebody in the first place, OR, when "freedom" is used as a kind of synonym, for something perceive to be something good which also is already existing for other reasons (but not rights) or no specific reason at all.

Congress should start with domestic propaganda tro

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst propaganda is from the US media, congress itself, and the American government. As an European outsider who occasionally looks at US media, it looks to me like a good chunk of the American media lives in an alternate reality, just like their China/Russia obsessed congress. Making up these fantastical stories about foreign interference in the reality distortion field just makes Americans look dumb to an outsider.

Two issues

[shentino]

There are two separate issues here.

First, do foreign propaganda trolls have free speech rights in relation to the federal government?

Second, if they don't, can social media be forced to investigate said trolls?

I'm a little iffy on the first part, but my theory is that anything that would bring a foreigner of any sort under US jurisdiction in the first place would also put them under the protection of the constitution, with the attending protections to free speech as provided in the first amendment.

The second part is a completely different angle. Social media sites themselves are entitled to their own constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and they are also not agents of the state. Unless a court order says otherwise they are under no obligation to investigate foreign trolls, or, for that matter, even lift a finger to assist the government in doing so.

So, in a nutshell, apart from first amendment implications with the trolls themselves, why should social media sites have to roll up their own sleeves to do the government's job for them?

Re:Two issues

[Gallomimia]

Can I stop to mention that such freedoms to speak uncouthly regarding ones own government in such freedom loving country as Canada? There are several laws against free speech.

No. Market Correct

[Gallomimia]

I believe the world of massive social media will soon implode, and give way to decentralized private interoperable networks, and the platforms that have adequate moderation will attract the masses away from the ones that don't. It's not exactly a new concept.

Free speech???

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to like this shit but it's free speech. Having a law that requires telecommunications companies support law enforcement investigating criminal activity is one thing, suggesting FB et.al. should police speech is quite another....so no, Congress should pass no law in this respect. Any suggesting of doing so is by people who want to control what we say, think & do. Get the F out of our lives already.

Should Congress Force Social Media To Investigate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, definitely. Propaganda takes advantage of free speech and returns nothing. It is lying to gain advantage. If a foreign agency is doing it to us, we should counter that effort. Companies like Facebook and Twitter should work with intelligence agencies to detect who is gaming the system, and respond in kind.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problems are manifold:

1. The US government itself is one of the largest suppliers of fact-less propaganda - no less in magnitude than "foreign propaganda". Who watches the watchers, when the watchers are also creators? These very ideas are themselves "anti-Constitution" and "anti-American" propaganda created by Americans!!

2. There is actually no evidence of "foreign propaganda" ever shown or provided by either the US MSM or the US government. It's no more than hearsay and innuendo at best.

3. Clear and obvious solution is free speech because there is no privileged position that is "correct".

healthiest, best educated, and most intelligent

[Anonymous Coward]

You what?
The USA has terrible healthcare costs, procedures, statistics and results.
Our education system is weak, slow, expensive, corporate-owned, racist and corrupted by sky beings.
We Americans are so "intelligent" that we elect as our supreme leader a series of compulsive liars and frauds, ignoramuses and blowhards, ... Reagan, Clinton, Bush2, Obama, Trump ... and we seriously considered McCain, Palin, Carson, Hillary ... fuck, where does one stop?
Dementia and senility are rife in Congress and the Senate.
Corruption is endemic and well-documented.
Why would anyone assume that we US citizens would even be able to differentiate between "truth" and "propaganda"?
Talkshow radio, "balanced" news, corporate ownership of the public debate space.
Our entire history is predicated on a lie, a genocide, and an ongoing global theft at the point of a nuclear gun.
And we applaud the professional liars, the advertisers and marketers, elevating them to pedestals on their capacity to con us into buying their products. Witness the SuperBowl debacle.
Really, I'm lucky to be a US-born citizen, there's much worse places to be born, but I do NOT share your illusions about our society, nor our history.

Re: healthiest, best educated, and most intelligen

[Archtech]

Are you familiar with the word "supposedly"? As in:

"Why should anyone assume that US citizens - supposedly among the world's healthiest, best educated, and most intelligent - are unable to distinguish between truth and propaganda?"

supposedly
n adverb according to what is generally believed or supposed.

I did not say that I think US citizens are among the world's healthiest, best educated, and most intelligent. I said that it is generally supposed in some quarters. In particular, it is generally supposed by the US government. Which makes it inconsistent and hypocritical for the USA government to simulate concern that US citizens are being deceived by propaganda. If US citizens are as clever and well-educated as the US government would have us believe, those citizens would have no difficulty in distinguishing between truth and lies.