Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Says It Exposed Nearly 700,000 People To Russian Propaganda During Election (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Twitter this evening released a new set of statistics related to its investigation on Russia propaganda efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including that 677,775 people were exposed to social media posts from more than 50,000 automated accounts with links to the Russian government. Many of the new accounts uncovered have been traced back to an organization called the the Internet Research Agency, or IRA, with known ties to the Kremlin. The data was first presented in an incomplete form to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee last November, which held hearings to question Facebook, Google, and Twitter on the role the respective platforms and products played in the Russian effort to help elect President Donald Trump. Twitter says it's now uncovered more accounts and new information on the wide-reaching Russian cyberintelligence campaign.
"Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing notifications to 677,775 people in the United States who followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked a Tweet from these accounts during the election period," writes Twitter's public policy division in a blog post published today. "Because we have already suspended these accounts, the relevant content on Twitter is no longer publicly available."
"Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing notifications to 677,775 people in the United States who followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked a Tweet from these accounts during the election period," writes Twitter's public policy division in a blog post published today. "Because we have already suspended these accounts, the relevant content on Twitter is no longer publicly available."
Changing the trending section to show TrumpShutdown instead of SchumerShutdown, even though a basic Civics class and understanding shows clearly that this is a Democrat action isn't propaganda ?
Removing the hashtag Release the memo from trending because a left leaning PAC said something about Russian bots isn't propaganda ?
Twitter please. And they say right wingers are prone to believing conspiracies.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Literally not a single piece of proof exists.
It's been two years. It was a lie. Let's move on.
Every single one of our intelligence agencies are convinced that the Russians directly influenced our election but you believe it is a lie?
Damn, who should I believe, highly paid government experts and analysts or some guy on Slashdot?
That's a tough one!
Every single one of our intelligence agencies are convinced that the Russians directly influenced our election but you believe it is a lie?
It's funny you quote that, as that was debunked as well :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trumpâ(TM)s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last yearâ(TM)s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies â" the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
So who should you believe ? Obviously, you've been believing the wrong people.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
People engage in Bayesian reasoning all the time, even if they don't know what that is. Everyone does this. If you actually believe anyone in the Trump organization would never collude with Russians, then Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin appears entirely innocent to you, even though Trump Jr. has openly admitted he was seeking Russian government supplied dirt on Clinton.
Likewise the meeting between George Papadopolous and Joseph Mifsud in which Mifsud offered a Russian government trove of emails from the Clinton campaign was perfectly innocent. Papadoploous lying about that meeting to the FBI was also a perfectly innocent mistake.
And when in response to Papadopolous's attempt to set up a meeting involving Trump Paul Manafort complained "It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal," he really meant that nobody in the campaign should be doing it.
So given that people who believe there isn't a shred of evidence of collusion aren't impressed by these fairly well-established facts attested to by the participants, I think it's perfectly legitimate to what level of evidence in your opinion constitutes "a shred"?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Either Mueller really has some dynamite shit on trump that we don't know about;
Considering the prosecutors that are willing to drop their high paid jobs to work on the case you can be pretty sure that it is something significant.
They aren't exactly nobodies that are looking to make a name for themselves. Most of them are considered to be the top name in their respective field.
It looks a lot like FBI have been investigating Trump since way before the election campaigning started and just handed everything over to Muller on his first day on the job.
But that doesn't mean it will lead anywhere. Impeaching a president is a completely political deal so the entire investigation is pretty pointless.
If the congress doesn't want Trump gone then evidence doesn't matter. If they want him gone they don't need much evidence at all.