Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Reopens Probe Into Russian Involvement in Brexit (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes TechCrunch: Facebook has said it will conduct a wider investigation into whether there was Russian meddling on its platform relating to the 2016 Brexit referendum vote in the UK. Wednesday its UK policy director Simon Milner wrote to a parliamentary committee that's been conducting a wide-ranging enquiry into fake news -- and whose chair has been witheringly critical of Facebook and Twitter for failing to co-operate with requests for information and assistance on the topic of Brexit and Russia -- saying it will widen its investigation, per the committee's request. Though he gave no firm deadline for delivering a fresh report -- beyond estimating "a number of weeks".

It's not clear whether Twitter will also bow to pressure to conduct a more thorough investigation of Brexit-related disinformation. At the time of writing the company had not responded to our questions either. At the end of last year committee chair Damian Collins warned both companies they could face sanctions for failing to co-operate with the committee's enquiry -- slamming Twitter's investigations to date as "completely inadequate", and expressing disbelief that both companies had essentially ignored the committee's requests... Independent academic studies have suggested there was in fact significant tweet-based activity generated around Brexit by Russian bots."

Theresa May has said Russia's attempts to "sow discord" in the West could not go unchallenged, and warned Vladimir Putin, "We know what you are up to."

Facebook's response complained that a new investigation "requires detailed analysis of historic data by our security experts, who are also engaged in preventing live threats to our service."

316 comments

  1. Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Daily Mail

  2. Oh FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The leftists are losing their bloody minds, you can't blame all your losses on Russia. Sour grapes mate. Enough with this, face it the other side won. Fucking elitist doss cunts, you're in such denial that you lost, that it couldn't POSSIBLY have happened without shady intervention. You lot are off your medication.

    1. Re: Oh FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's just shock from realizing how absolutely retarded conservatives have become.

      Once they've come to terms with that, they'll settle down and just go vote instead, since they'll know they'll have to counteract the stupidity more than normal in this era.

    2. Re: Oh FFS by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Question for all Democrat partisans: When you suck a banker's cock, does it taste like money?

  3. Oh brother! It just doesn't stop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes! The Russians put nanobots into our brains and make us do their bidding!

    Damn I don't know if we will survive 40 more years! Somebody please! Turn off the internet!

  4. Further Meddling by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if Russia is behind Facebook's reopening of this probe into Russian meddling in Brexit. If you're Russia it seems like the best way to stir up shit in opposing powers is to let them tear themselves in half over whether or not Russia was involved in influencing their government in some way.

    1. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder if Russia is behind alvinrod's commenting that Russia is behind Facebook's reopening of this probe into Russian meddling in Brexit. If you're Russia it seems like the best way to stir up shit in opposing powers is to let alvirond start some whataboutisms over whether or not Russia was involved in influencing Facebook reopining this probe into Russian meddling in Brexit.

    2. Re:Further Meddling by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Funny

      Truth. Hillary Clinton was the real Russian agent.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queue, the "Russian Troll" accusations, AC :-)

    4. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's matryoshka dolls all the way down!

    5. Re: Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The same 100 people and no one else go to Slashdot. Nice try!

    6. Re:Further Meddling by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Russia is behind Facebook's reopening of this probe into Russian meddling in Brexit. If you're Russia it seems like the best way to stir up shit in opposing powers is to let them tear themselves in half over whether or not Russia was involved in influencing their government in some way.

      Russia uses online propaganda to meddle. If their decision to reopen the probe into Russian meddling in Brexit was based on online propaganda then they are more gullible than Trump voters.

      It seems extremely unlikely that Russia is going to draw unwanted attention to itself. The best course of action is for all parties to remain calm and wait for the outcome of the investigation. Now, if you doubt Facebook's own investigation then you are effectively claiming that Facebook is currently meddling in Brexit which is some serious conspiracy shit for a mere corporation to even attempt.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:Further Meddling by maybe111 · · Score: 1

      that's all bill clinton

    8. Re:Further Meddling by alvinrod · · Score: 1, Informative

      I only wish I were getting paid for half of the shit I think up sometimes. The simple truth is that Russia probably doesn't even need to go to those lengths when the monsters are due on maple street.

      I think we're already stuck in the kind of mental rut that the country was in after the September 11 attacks that resulted in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt the consequences of this will be anywhere near as severe, but this is something that's clearly gained a life of its own. There may well be a kernel of truth under it all, but the story has probably grown much larger in the retelling.

    9. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we're already stuck in the kind of mental rut that the country was in after the September 11 attacks that resulted in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      So 8 years of liberal policies is equivalent to the worst terrorist attack on American soil, figuratively speaking of course?
      You know what? There is no way I can possibly argue against that.......

    10. Re: Further Meddling by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And 99 of them are APK?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian just made you type that statement.

    12. Re:Further Meddling by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      If anyone accuses me of being a Russian troll I'm going to put on my bulletproof ushanka, moustache and greatcoat, pick up my Makarov pistol and go round and deal with them. For ze Motherland!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians don't speak phony stereotype German, and although the end phrase probably would mention a mother, I don't think the meaning is accurately conveyed.

    14. Re:Further Meddling by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re: Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it looks like a Russian troll, speaks like a Russian troll and smells of vodka, it's a Russian troll.

    16. Re:Further Meddling by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wait, that was phony stereotype German?

      I mean, sure, there was a 'ze' in there, but that was an anomaly in the broader statement.

      Germans do it for the fatherland anyway. The whole Eastern front was basically a custody battle.

    17. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on! I think the Russians tampered with my power bill too!

    18. Re:Further Meddling by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      What the hell "liberal polices" are you talking about? Obama passed Nixon's healthcare plan and expanded our wars into another 5 countries.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    19. Re:Further Meddling by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      The ability to blame Russia keeps the Democratic party from fixing it's internal corruption and winning elections. Russiagate has already made the entire American news system shit the bed over basic journalistic integrity and understanding which direction time moves in.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    20. Re:Further Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell "liberal polices" are you talking about? Obama passed Nixon's healthcare plan and expanded our wars into another 5 countries.

      Well, yeah... But THAT IS "liberal policies" to the wingnuts.

    21. Re: Further Meddling by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      If it looks like a Russian troll, speaks like a Russian troll, and smells of vodka, it's a Democrat shill.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    22. Re:Further Meddling by greythax · · Score: 1

      Except that the people who enabled the corruption and the candidate that took advantage of it are out. But keep spouting ignorant rhetoric, people are usually unimpressed with actual facts.

    23. Re:Further Meddling by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Two heads are removed from the hydra, and you think it's Mission Accomplished. How cute. The establishment Dems have already denounced Manning's candidacy as "OMG TEH RUSSIANS," so the beast certainly still lives.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    24. Re:Further Meddling by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Nope. Because the DNC just finished electing Tom "More of the same" Perez and Keith "black ethnostates are best ethnostates" Ellison. In other words, nothing has changed except and this is using the progressive/left rhetoric, they also placed a genuine nazi into a position of power.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re: Further Meddling by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      I thought they smelled of Santorum?

    26. Re: Further Meddling by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Obama was a fake-progressive capitalist running dog, not a liberal.

    27. Re: Further Meddling by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the Clintons work for Beijing, not Moscow.

  5. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see a lot of anonymous coward postings taking a "nothing to see here.. move along" stance... So sorry that Facebook looking into and possibly exposing something ruffles your delicate feathers so much...

    1. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0, Troll

      The problem is that it's just an excuse by liberal elites to not take responsibility for abandoning their voter bases. Even if Russia did interfere, the best solution would be to adopt populist left policies, but that would mean rich assholes would have to actually pay taxes, and that the "centrist" corporate cocksuckers would need to die out like the dinosaurs they are.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I see a lot of anonymous coward postings taking a "nothing to see here.. move along" stance...
      So sorry that Facebook looking into and possibly exposing something ruffles your delicate feathers so much...

      Looking into .... what? Exposing ... what?

      As much as I dislike Trump, this whole thing is complete bullshit. It's all a big load of nothing. What exactly did Russia do? Post pro-Trump or anti-Hillary messages on Facebook? How in the fuck does that constitute "interfering" with the election?

    3. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a sort of arrogance in thinking your online identity matters to anyone other than yourself.
      And it's hard not to have a general distaste for social media these days anyways. Facebook is part of that, but more the sites like Twitter and Reddit. People get wrapped up in their little groups of followers and sense of self importance. Not everything you do on the internet has to be tied to an identity.

    4. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Surely you don't think Russian agents would have to post anonymously. The would have well established and trusted aliases.

    5. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      People all over the UK voted to exit the EU.
      "Russians" did not drive out of the embassy and "vote" a lot all over the UK to sway the result.
      Real citizens all over the UK wanted out of the EU and the vote results reflected that.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      ...and I hear Scotland wants out of the UK and they overwhelmingly voted AGAINST Brexit.

    7. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also voted to stay in the UK when offered the chance to leave. Can't be that overwhelming.

    8. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      by a VERY slim margin....AND that was BEFORE the Brexit vote...

    9. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh please, they're "exposing" jack shit. They're just pushing their own propaganda.

      The left and globalists have been attacking, insulting, demonizing and trying to subvert the Brexit from the start. Crying "Russians!" at every turn is their way of doing what they accuse others of: creating conflict and distrust to keep people pliable. Leftists always project their own bullshit on others.

    10. Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      TBH, this seems like PR from Facebook. How effective are their ads and platform? Look how little Russians spent and how effective they were on Brexit and the US Election! The more the 'Russians hacked the elections and referendum' via Facebook the better Facebook looks for other would-be advertisers on their platform.

      How effective are ads on Facebook? According to Facebook, able to change the course of History and give you everything you could dream of!

  6. Why people dislike "intelligent" leaders by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years" - Barack Obama, third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Why people dislike "intelligent" leaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These same people think Donald Trump is colluding with Russia, when he's selling weapons to the Ukraine: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2017/12/23/agrees-send-lethal-weapons-ukraine-angering-russia/f7BzGyFMrlFOsxoIxiOR3K/story.html

      It's almost like no one paid attention to his foreign policy speech during the campaign...

    2. Re:Why people dislike "intelligent" leaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all think this has anything to do with policy.

      Trump could be doing the exact same policy as HRC and it would not mater. All that maters is who won and who lost.

    3. Re:Why people dislike "intelligent" leaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's amusing considering it's Obama's political side that's pushing this Cold War propaganda. They're doing their best to revive it.

  7. Oh, I get it! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the Russians actually fund Communist and Green parties and generally support left-wing agitation, there's nothing to see here. But when people vote right-of-center, it must be a Russian conspiracy!

    1. Re:Oh, I get it! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What are you talking about? There's been a massive amount of attention to Russian support of Jill Stein. This has included aspects of Senate investigations https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/19/jill-stein-trump-russia-investigation-documents. There were many mainstream media reports on it such as https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-are-senate-russia-investigators-interested-jill-stein-n831261 and https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/senate-intelligence-committee-jill-stein-russia.

    2. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It called the horseshoe theory, support the extremes to cause chaos.

      University of Washington released a study today saying that #blacklivesmatters and #bluelivematters supporters are largely a bunch of Russian trolls arguing with each other.

    3. Re:Oh, I get it! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Except none of the groups blamed are extreme, outside of DC.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive? A few articles written in a 48 hour perriod during one of the busiest travel days of the year during the busiest holiday week of the year. Nobody saw those and the publishers knew it.

    5. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? There's been a massive amount of attention to Russian support of Jill Stein

      The left loved Jill Stein and Wikileaks and was never bothered by their Russian connections until they began campaigning against Hillary Clinton.

    6. Re:Oh, I get it! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      And how much time was spent by CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC on this revelation compared to the supposed Russian influence for Trump?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Troll

      #blacklivesmatter is responsible for a dozen or more police officer deaths. There's also no shortage of key leadership figures who've posted long anti-white screeds or what the progressive left would like to call "hate speech." And there is next to zero outcry over that, or even next to zero outcry in the media over it. The only one that got any real media play was the #blm leader in Toronto because it came very close to actually hitting the level for incitement in Canada.

      I'll remind you that if the left want to play by the "hate speech" rules, there will be people who will hold them to those same rules.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Oh, I get it! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm definitely left of centre and I think Jill Stein is an airhead woo-mistress whom I don't even want on my school board.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re: Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive? Are you fucking retarded?

      Four articles in two years isn't "massive".

      Running an average of 11 articles per day for two years (CNN's negative Trump coverage) is.

    10. Re:Oh, I get it! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

      #blacklivesmatter is responsible for a dozen or more police officer deaths.

      In the US, the right-wing kills more cops than any other group:

      https://www.pastemagazine.com/...

      And here's the actual report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the above article is based on, in case you'd like to see it:

      https://www.gao.gov/assets/690...

      I mean, just in the past few weeks there have been at least two cases of right-wing jackoffs killing cops

      http://www.newsweek.com/colora...

      And more cases of alt-reich nazis murdering people:

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...

      And right-wing pepe terrorism:

      https://www.redstate.com/smoos...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And here's the actual report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the above article is based on, in case you'd like to see it:

      Uh, you might want to actually read that GAO report. Unlike the paste eaters over at paste magazine, who also missed what it said. When you remove the "anti-government extremists" which aren't actually just right-wing. And in those cases, once you actually read them you find out that the vast majority of them weren't right wing either. Yo find out that the GAO report still has muslims killing more people in the US even if you leave those "anti-government extremists" in there. Let's not forget those lovely black block kids, who are also anti-government but sure not right-wing. Or groups like BAMN, and Antifa which are both communist based...because as we all know, communism and right-wing surely go together.

      Though I like those other stories, maybe in your haste to post you missed the words "alleged" and so on. I seem to remember tearing your talking points on several of those stories last time as well, and it was a case where those people who killed cops usually left long-anti white, anti-police screeds as well explicitly stating that they were doing it for some reason. And in all those stories you posted? It's all alleged, some tie-in full of maybes, possibilities, allegedlies.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we are agreed that BLM is a racist hate group that kills cops just like some other racist hate groups that kill cops?

      I think the guy you were replying to was making the point that BLM gets a pass for being a racist hate group that kills cops though. Not that they are the only one.

    13. Re:Oh, I get it! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      When you remove the "anti-government extremists" which aren't actually just right-wing. And in those cases, once you actually read them you find out that the vast majority of them weren't right wing either.

      You're lying.

      What you're trying to say is, "Once you remove all the right-wing extremists from the study of who killed cops, you will find that no right-wing extremists killed cops. You're really being dishonest.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Oh by the way, I'm sure you also believe the story out of Canada where the muslim girl claimed someone "cut her hijab" and were salivating all over it as proof that those "evil right wingers" were out there. I'll also bet you didn't watch the press conference, let me give you a hint. Pay attention to her mothers eyes, always down and left, look, down and left. That's a known sign of remembering a fabrication. Oh, and of course, we can't forget that it didn't actually happen...but it sure didn't stop the left-wing media from really-really-really hoping it did. Then going on and on, about how it really doesn't matter that it didn't happen. Our moral progressive overlords are telling us that we're still bad people because of that fake hate-crime. Or our clusterfuck of a PM from really-really-really being stupid. Just like our Premier in Ontario, Kathlynn Wynne being shown just how progressive and modern Islam is, and how very accommodating of women it is. While she's made to sit in the back of the room, and also not allowed into the mosque proper.

      So brave, so progressive. Just remember, menstruating girls go behind the rest of the girls because they're doubly unclean.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:Oh, I get it! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Every conversation with Mishiki:

      Me: "The dude carved a swastika into their lawn before killing people. Then he told his girlfriend he killed her parents because he was afraid they had found out he was a nazi!"

      Mishiki: "So, what's your proof that he's a nazi?"

      Me: "He said so, and he carved a swastika into the lawn before killing people."

      Mishiki: "But how does that prove anything?"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Oh, I get it! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Oh, I get it! by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I've heard plenty of people disparaging Black Lives Matter. It certainly didn't begin with post #55975607 on Slashdot, and I'm certain I've seen it in the mainstream press on TV.

      Like any huge social movement, there's always going to be elements who take a more militant/hardline stance. The most relevant historical parallel would be the Black Panthers' activities during the civil rights movement in the 60s. Or more recently, the people ran down by Nazis in Charleston. Which is not to say "All sides. All sides." are equal - absolutely not. My approach to analyzing these things is much too rigorous and self-critical for such a cop-out. Frankly, and I'm not one to brag, but most people can't touch it. Most never reach that level of maturity, even if they live to be 105.

      It's that approach that leads me to the following points:
      (1) There are a good deal of hateful people involved in BLM. I haven't looked too much into individuals, but some of them might even be (more than) self-proclaimed leaders. They see it as an opportunity to spread their hateful message, and care little about principles.
      (2) If you take a look at the actual issues that sparked the BLM movement in the first place, it's about police accountability. And when our police are not free to violate the law and our inalienable rights, that benefits people of every color. It's only because the police treat blacks disproportionately worse that it's framed as a racial issue. It's easier to galvanize anger (and thus change) that way. More black families have been affected, so they will on average be quicker to see the need.

      It's interesting that you specifically mention someone in Toronto. The conception is that the police state in Canada is much less strong. I haven't done a comparison of the relevant statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that deaths, at least, are less there. Plenty of things, even worse things I'd argue, that you can do to someone besides killing them, though. But... if the situation in Canada is better, that locale would be more likely to give rise to grandstanders vs. people actually interested in making positive change. I'm reminded of a rapper from Toronto, Drake. You know, the one who was a child star and went to private school but likes to claim he "started from the bottom".

    18. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck makes you think that story got any coverage of any significance outside of Canada?

    19. Re:Oh, I get it! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how much power does Jill Stein have compared to Donald J. Trump?

      Trump: 46.1%
      Clinton: 48.2%
      Stein: 1.0%

      I'm not surprised an also-ran irrelevance isn't getting as much coverage as POTUS.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You're lying.

      Actual court cases prove otherwise. Then again, I see you haven't read the gao report yet.

      What you're trying to say is, "Once you remove all the right-wing extremists from the study of who killed cops, you will find that no right-wing extremists killed cops. You're really being dishonest.

      No. I'm saying that mislabeling for the sake of mislabeling does nobody any good. So why don't you go read up on those cases, and you'll suddenly find out that a good half of them aren't actually "white nationalists." But if you want to really play that game, then we shall take a look at black on white crime, which suddenly becomes "black nationalists killing whites" especially when the reasoning in the person as to why they killed that person was "they were white." You sure you really want to go down that path?

      Would you like to try another strawman?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    21. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You're not disproving anything I've said. Keep diggin' that hole.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    22. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Forgot to hit "post anonymously" huh?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re: Oh, I get it! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      There's been a lot more articles than four in two years. Those are simply examples. But more to the point: Trump is President of the US; Stein never had a chance at winning anything. By nature allegations about one are much more concerning than allegations about the other (and by the same token, allegations about Clinton have also gotten a lot more attention than anything related to Stein).

    24. Re: Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that benefits people of *every* color

      Note that the counter movement to "black lives matter" was "blue lives matter", which means police, not some race of blue people. Indeed, blacks are police at about the same rate as their percentage of the population. The statement "benefits every color" implies that the reason your debate opponents are opposing you is because of the color of your skin and theirs. However, your opponents are the set of police not the set of all white people. So police hear "benefits every color", and they're like "wait, are they still talking to us?".

      If you direct your arguments toward the audience "whites", then people will think you're arguing with whites about black v white topics. I'm white, and I would also like it if cops weren't strolling around strapped to the nines, but I'm not a cop, so PLEASE STOP TARGETING YOUR MESSAGES AT ME, AND TALK TO THE DAMN POLICE.

      e.g. "greater police accountabilty benefits blacks, sure, but it also benefits police... here's a list of reasons why..."

    25. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-Defamation League? Seriously? That hate group?

    26. Re:Oh, I get it! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sure, Fashiki. Whatever you say.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's that approach that leads me to the following points:
      (1) There are a good deal of hateful people involved in BLM. I haven't looked too much into individuals, but some of them might even be (more than) self-proclaimed leaders. They see it as an opportunity to spread their hateful message, and care little about principles.

      If you pay attention to the people, whether on social media or in meat space you'll find out that it's not just the leaders spreading their hateful message. It's people openly supporting that hateful message. In this, it's no different then the KKK. Where you have a group of violent thugs agitating violence against one particular group of people and people gravitating towards it because they believe there's some believed injustice. So with that, you should look up the various facets of the people and see what they're pushing. You've probably heard of the "wewazkangz" meme, if you haven't look it up. You'll quickly find that there's more active black ethnonationalist being violent or supporting violence then there are white ethnonationalist for example.

      (2) If you take a look at the actual issues that sparked the BLM movement in the first place, it's about police accountability. And when our police are not free to violate the law and our inalienable rights, that benefits people of every color. It's only because the police treat blacks disproportionately worse that it's framed as a racial issue. It's easier to galvanize anger (and thus change) that way. More black families have been affected, so they will on average be quicker to see the need.

      Well that's the interesting thing isn't it? Because BLM was built on a farce, lie, and a pile of bullshit. Remember "hands up don't shoot!" and the associated stuff surrounding that? Yeah, that's the face of it. There are bad police just like there are bad people, but let's also remember that when BLM was screeching "we want police body cams" a couple of years now in the future, they're screeching "we want police body cams removed." Because it's actually showing that "good boy" according to all his neighbors and friends, and family was really a piece of shit that already had 3 counts of robbery, and pulled a gun on a cop. Or tried to drive a cop over and got shot for his trouble.

      It's interesting that you specifically mention someone in Toronto. The conception is that the police state in Canada is much less strong. I haven't done a comparison of the relevant statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that deaths, at least, are less there.

      Comparatively speaking, in Canada it's natives who are the "blacks of Canada" and have the same socio-economic, family failures, rampant drug culture, and generational crime issues. It is however, much like in the US that if you're white you're more likely going to be shot by a cop then if you're black or native. Even at that, in Canada the justice system systemically goes out of it's way to avoid putting natives in jail. And I wish I was joking, that's enacted under the "gladue report." The justice system in Canada is littered natives who have multiple violent offences and aren't put into jail until they do something that not even the most progressive judge can ignore.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    28. Re:Oh, I get it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sure, Fashiki. Whatever you say.

      Okie dokie there intellectual coward. Read that GAO report yet and get to the part where more muslims have killed more people in the US then white nationalists yet?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    29. Re: Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was big news in the UK and doubtless brought a lot of comfort to British Muslim-haters.

    30. Re:Oh, I get it! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so the concern isn't that the Russians are influencing the elections, it's that they are influencing the wrong person. Just like the fact that Pew Research shows the media heavily tilted against Trump. It's the person, not the action. That is quite typical of lovely little leftists like you, though...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    31. Re:Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguing with Ratzo is pointless. He's a committed enemy of the US and of western civilization.

    32. Re: Oh, I get it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Putinbots were also promoting Stein as part of their campaign of division. It's possible that votes for Stein cost Clinton the election.

  8. What a load of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Blame everything on russians. Ignore your own crooked crimes.

    1. Re:What a load of bullshit. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Blame everything on liberals. Ignore your own crooked crimes.

      FTFY

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:What a load of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They DID rig a primary against Bernie Sanders. So there is that.

  9. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh!

    Cockholsters, they are at FUCKFACE.

  10. Absurdist theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Theresa May knows what Putin is up to, why does she do exactly what he wants? She should just pretend he's a good friend, would be less embarrassing.

    1. Re:Absurdist theater by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because of the Referendum. Though with new polling suggesting the British public turning decidedly away from a Hard Brexit, and maybe even away from Brexit entirely, there may be a change of heart among the Tory and Labour frontbenches.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Absurdist theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vote was done. Brexit was chosen.

      The establishment filth always want a do-over if they lose. They keep demanding do-overs until they win, and then they close the casino. No do-overs for anyone else, as it was clearly decided that they won.

      Despicable, dishonest vermin they are, as are the useful idiots that support them.

    3. Re:Absurdist theater by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      "Establishment filth"? Really, come on Ivan, you can do better than that. It must suck being stuck in St. Petersburg, chained to a country with a GDP less than Italy. I guess that's what makes you so angry.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Absurdist theater by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Bit too late for that isn't it? The question was clear, concise, and there was enough of a voter turnout. This isn't going to be like the referendum in Canada over Quebec national sovereignty, where the question was determined to be misleading, was not clear, and was not concise thus ruled null. If the government goes any other way then what with the public actually voted, then the government violates the social contract. In many cases, the government especially the UK government have already voided it, you can see that where the police are not upholding the law or ignoring crimes because of various reasons. Don't be surprised if you see things deteriorate quickly if they decide to go against the initial vote.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Absurdist theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bit too late for that isn't it?

      Sorry, Mashiki, but nope. Turns out people can change their minds.

      We are not bound in chains of iron and oppression like you prefer.

      It's called freedom. That's why we don't have permanent elections, actually.

      Except in authoritarian countries like yours, comrade. Where you don't actually have elections, you just pretend you do and can't admit they're fake, because then you get a gun to the back of the head.

      The question was clear, concise, and there was enough of a voter turnout.

      The question was flawed on a fundamental basis, as it lacked particularity as to terms, the turnout was actually a plurality of non-votes, and with results that are close enough that we can expect many people to reject any attempt, let alone a flawed and broken method, of separation, contrary to May's machinations, let alone the hysteria of the Brexit Forever bunch, the people will demand the right to review her actions, and exercise their own will as they wish.

      Really, it's a tell that you're so stridently against even Parliament having a vote of approval. Very revealing that you can't handle that.

      If the government goes any other way then what with the public actually voted, then the government violates the social contract.

      If the people decide to change their mind, and the government refuses to listen, then the government violates the social contract. Especially when the people are at best, close to evenly divided on the subject, and thus the actual opinion of the people is likely not unified, but in some disagreement.

      In many cases, the government especially the UK government have already voided it, you can see that where the police are not upholding the law or ignoring crimes because of various reasons.

      Yes, the police often act in ways that subvert the law because they've found that contrary to Abraham Lincoln's alleged statement, rigorous enforcement of bad law does not achieve a just end. It's called the brown-bag bottle. They were desperately looking for that when it came to Marijuana, but couldn't, so eventually legalization took over, not that authoritarians like Jefferson Davis-wannabe Sessions care that the people totally disagree with his oppression and thuggery.

      He, like you, doesn't want to listen. Well, then you will find yourself being ignored.

      Don't be surprised if you see things deteriorate quickly if they decide to go against the initial vote.

      Don't be surprised when you see things work out entirely different than your flawed Kremlin-dictated illogic compels you to espouse, your tendency towards building men of straw only means you'll burn yourself even more quickly.

      It's funny how self-destructive you are, it's like you can't bring yourself to care anymore. Lies, hysteria, hypocrisy, inanity, it's all the same to you. What a paragon of chaos you've become, lurching around with all the signs of dementia.

      But wait, wait, you test so well.

    6. Re: Absurdist theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the disappointment after the University education, the fluency in foreign languages, hoping to end up as a proper journalist telling truth to power but instead ending up in a government propaganda factory forced to write lies all day to support a corrupt, immoral and kleptocratic regime. That must gnaw at the soul.

  11. Ad hominem. Ad hominem. Ad hominem. Ad hominem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ad hominem. Ad hominem. Ad hominem. Ad hominem.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Our "leaders" upset because we didn't choose them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go figure. The reality is we have *ALWAYS* had influences during elections from many different perspectives. That's called democracy. How people can get upset over this is beyond me. If Russia is so effective at influencing our elections then maybe our political leaders should I don't know duplicate Russia's tactics???? instead of bitching and moaning about how they're influencing our elections. I do want to point out that we have influenced a lot of other countries via different means over the last 100 years- from outright supporting overthrows to similar sorts of manipulation of democratic votes. It's a bit late to say "how dare you do that!" when we've been doing it for a hundred plus years already.

  14. correct me if im wrong by nimbius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but it was Mays own party that proposed Brexit on a gamble. After the country actually voted in favour of it, 3 separate politicians assumed responsibility for the fiasco and each stepped aside as the brakes were nowhere to be found on this train. Even Boris Johnson had a swing at the corpulent trashbag known as Brexit. the UK even went so far as to say the legislation was somehow nonbinding, and when pressed by the EU to exist in a timely fashion had the audacity to demand "a good deal" in exchange for leaving. They did not in fact get a deal.

    now may's trying again, desparately, to save face and pin the blame on russia? Seriously? At some point someone has to call her bluff and ask what strategic or tactical advantage Russia gains by sabotaging a nation into exile from a trade group russia already has formal relations with (the EU)? In other words, why would russia intentionally make it more cumbersome to trade with the UK?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Yes. May made a poorly calculated risk, just like Clinton did. So, both blame Russia.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:correct me if im wrong by coastwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Russia is under trade sanctions with the EU for invading Ukraine. Russia would also like to reassert influence over more of Eastern Europe and the EU stands in their way. Brexit is mana from heaven for their geopolitical ambitions.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    3. Re:correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm correcting you, because you're wrong.

      Only one politician, David Cameron, stepped aside because of accepting responsibility for Brexit. The others "stepped aside" after humiliating electoral defeats of their own.

      Boris Johnson has been up to his elbows in Brexit pretty much from the beginning. I'm not sure what "having a swing at it" entails in your account.

      What "legislation" was "somehow nonbinding"? This could only apply to the referendum itself, which was formally nonbinding (and still is).

      "They did not in fact get a deal." - look, with over a year of negotiations still to go, it's a bit early to be declaring the whole process dead in the water. They have not "in fact" left yet at all. What kind of deal they might get in doing so is still up in the air.

      As to what Russia has to gain - the EU is its major rival for geopolitical influence in Europe. The EU is severely weakened by losing the UK. (I would say "probably terminally weakened" if it follows through the threat of "no deal" for Britain, but that has yet to be seen.) If Britain gets a reasonable deal on leaving, then Russia gets to deal with the UK and EU - separately, and each in a much weakened state, so Russia is better off. If Britain doesn't get its deal, then the EU itself will probably break up - it will have lost not only Britain's hefty budget contributions, but also its own veneer of democratic legitimacy. That might be more than the Russians bargain for, and if it threatens we'll see them throw their influence in quite another direction, but for now the threat of it helps to keep the EU weak.

    4. Re:correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Back to whine about how America isn't sucking off the rich enough, AC?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:correct me if im wrong by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Fiasco? That's the kind of attitude that hates democracy and loves autocratic governments. The British people voted for it, and if it's inconvenient, then that's just tough shit. You don't get to overturn voting because you don't agree with it. British sovereignty is more important than other goals. If the EU had made its people a priority this would never have happened. But the EU doesn't represent the people of Europe and that is not something the British people want to be a part of. We must respect their decision even if we disagree. That's democracy.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:correct me if im wrong by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Britain is as far away from East Europe as you can get. Maybe if the EU represented the interests of the people, it would be more accepted. But it doesn't. Blaming the dirty foreigners for the problems is not a solution that will ever work.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:correct me if im wrong by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Yes. May made a poorly calculated risk, just like Clinton did. So, both blame Russia.

      Huh? Poorly calculated because they didn't account for Russian interference? What would a well calculated risk have looked like?

    8. Re:correct me if im wrong by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Brexit is mana from heaven for their geopolitical ambitions.

      Gosh, someone else finally noticed.

      BTW, it's "manna".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:correct me if im wrong by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Britain is as far away from East Europe as you can get.

      And what exactly does this have to do with the price of borshcht in Bryansk...?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cameron, not May.

    11. Re:correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      In May's case: NOT trying to gain political power by having a Brexit referendum that you didn't actually want to pass.
      In Clinton's case: NOT telling Trump to run. NOT having your campaign ask the media to take Trump seriously (a.k.a. the "Pied Piper" strategy). NOT sabotaging her primary opponent. NOT nominating a VP whose picture was in the dictionary next to 'milquetoast.' NOT giving highly paid speeches to banks that destroyed the global economy. Stepping foot in the Rust Belt. Supporting popular policies, such as a $15 minimum wage, legalizing marijuana, and not getting into more wars. Or just not NOT running for president after she was the villain that Obama inspirationally overcame in the last primary. Change any one of those, and we wouldn't have President Trump.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:correct me if im wrong by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      May is out of her depth. After the Brexit vote no-one wanted the job really. They all knew it would be a disaster and were just figured that now was their one and likely only opportunity to be PM. May won by default as everyone else self-destructed, and then found herself with no plan and no idea what to do.

      All she could do was repeat meaningless slogans like the infamous "Brexit means Brexit", and set up other ministers to take the fall when the inevitable happened.

      The election was a huge misjudgement. She vastly over-estimated her own popularity, her own charisma and ability. She vastly under-estimated Corbyn. And ever since then she has been trying to delay the inevitable, making promises she knows she can't keep.

      At this point half the Tory party is trying its best to drive the bus off the cliff, and the other half is trying to desperately limit the damage to avoid being unelectable for a decade. Unfortunately Labour isn't offering much of an alternative on the Brexit issue specifically, and the only way to halt this disaster is to somehow force another election or referendum in the next few years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:correct me if im wrong by mjwx · · Score: 2

      but it was Mays own party that proposed Brexit on a gamble. After the country actually voted in favour of it, 3 separate politicians assumed responsibility for the fiasco and each stepped aside as the brakes were nowhere to be found on this train. Even Boris Johnson had a swing at the corpulent trashbag known as Brexit. the UK even went so far as to say the legislation was somehow nonbinding, and when pressed by the EU to exist in a timely fashion had the audacity to demand "a good deal" in exchange for leaving. They did not in fact get a deal.

      now may's trying again, desparately, to save face and pin the blame on russia? Seriously? At some point someone has to call her bluff and ask what strategic or tactical advantage Russia gains by sabotaging a nation into exile from a trade group russia already has formal relations with (the EU)? In other words, why would russia intentionally make it more cumbersome to trade with the UK?

      I'm not a fan of the conservatives... but this isn't May's doing. If May really wants to put the brakes on Brexit, we'd have a second referendum, certainly enough people and parliamentarians are calling for one. Not even the Daily Mail can continue to pretend that Brexit is popular or going well.

      Russian interference isn't the cause of Brexit. Propaganda is, but the Propagandists are much closer to home.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:correct me if im wrong by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Theresa May wasn't Prime Minister in the run-up to the referendum, or indeed for a few days after.

    15. Re:correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I got the memo on that. s/May/Cameron/g
      Sorry, it's hard for a Yank like me to tell the pig fuckers apart.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re: correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A Yank like me"

      Come, come Neckbeard, that's rather dishonest of you.

    17. Re: correct me if im wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Russian interference isn't the cause of Brexit."

      No but it was enough to tip the balance in the vote, just like with Trump.

    18. Re: correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You're right. As a Southerner, it's nearly blasphemous to call myself a Yankee, but I was trying to accommodate the Brits.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    19. Re:correct me if im wrong by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Ok but that's not a poorly calculated risk, that's an upset.
      There wasn't a single bookmaker anywhere in the world that didn't have Trump as a long shot up until the day of the election or HRC as the favorite from the moment she announced.

    20. Re:correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Actually, independent progressives called out the risk a fair bit ahead of time, everyone knew that Bernie was a stronger candidate, and each failure I mentioned gained Clinton nothing. Hell, she was close to the margin of error before the primaries were over, and trends clearly showed that once people remembered Clinton, they remembered they fucking hated her.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    21. Re: correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      And in both cases, the primary concern should be that it was close enough that Russia's penny ante meddling could tip the scales. That's blaming the straw for possibly breaking the camel's back.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re:correct me if im wrong by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      OK, I get what you're saying, but your terminology is wrong. A 10-1 long-shot will pay out 10% of the time, not because someone fucked up in as calculating the odds, but because it's built-in risk. Sometimes things don't break your way, and that's just how it is.

    23. Re:correct me if im wrong by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The problem wasn't that she just had bad luck. She carved a path to failure out of adamantium with her bare hands. Given just the criteria I used, there are 2^10 power possibilities, and 1023 of the 1024 iterations result in not having President Trump. She took a series of calculated risks, and amazingly calculated the ONLY path to losing possible. I'm not sure if there is a specific word to describe it, but her failures were definitely in her poor calculations.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  15. Facebook please die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only to spare me from all your Russian investigation updates. Don't have a Facebook and I still receive their updates...

  16. Re:So, seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia helped expose all of the democrats crimes.

    So they're evil now. No no no don't look at the democrat crimes! focus on russia! that's whats important now. russia!

  17. Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Russiagaters are getting more and more desperately pathetic with each passing day. this pic about sums it up. Anything and everything can be and will be blamed on Russia, because we need a distraction from how horrible Hillary and her party are to lose the most winnable election in history.

    1. Re: Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was back in 2008 when GWB was so unpopular that Darth Sidious would have had a decent chance at election.

      Hillary knew coming after Obama was a gamble.

      The sad thing is that Trump still had to lie about it.

    2. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is worried about that damn memo...

    3. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people wanted someone with almost no qualification at all, being extremely well qualified was indeed a burden :(

    4. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Russiagaters are getting more and more desperately pathetic with each passing day.
      ...
      Anything and everything can be and will be blamed on Russia,

      Actually, only online propaganda and hacking has been blamed on Russia. We know Russia has excellent hackers and buildings full of online propagandists, so it seems like a logical conclusion that they have been using them.

      because we need a distraction from how horrible Hillary and her party are to lose the most winnable election in history.

      It's 2018 and the Republicans have controlled both Congress and the Presidency for over a year, so why are you bringing up the 2016 elections? At this rate, I swear it's 2037 and one of you retards with a faded MAGA hat is going to tell me about how that Trump and Republicans won and that I should accept it. Seriously, we get it!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Actually, only online propaganda and hacking has been blamed on Russia.

      And trying to hack an electrical grid. And voting machines. And invading Crimea. And invading Ukraine.

      We know Russia has excellent hackers and buildings full of online propagandists, so it seems like a logical conclusion that they have been using them.

      Uh huh. Without going to Google, can you name a single instance of such propaganda efforts, backed up by actual evidence and not hysterical accusations. Next, how does it compare to the billions spent to undermine the Ukrainian, Syrian, Libyan and Venezuelan governments - half of which resulted in "successful" regime change, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

      It's 2018 and the Republicans have controlled both Congress and the Presidency for over a year, so why are you bringing up the 2016 elections? At this rate, I swear it's 2037 and one of you retards with a faded MAGA hat is going to tell me about how that Trump and Republicans won and that I should accept it. Seriously, we get it!

      Not a Trump supporter, so that just makes you look stupid. And of course is is all about the 2016 election. Leaked emails from Hillary campaign showed her own insiders seeing the uranium deal as the biggest liability for her campaign. So, they followed the lead set by Bush in 2004, and laid plans to accuse their handpicked opponent of what they themselves were guilty of.

      And if the party had to stop talking about Russia for five minutes, they might have to actually start talking about why they lost to an incompetent racist WWE character who boasted about grabbing women by the pussy. They might have to talk about why they've made zero changes to their strategy or why there's been zero accountability for rigging their own primary, and shoving over a billion dollars in campaign money into a pile on the street and setting it on fire.

    6. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's 2018 and the Republicans have controlled both Congress and the Presidency for over a year, so why are you bringing up the 2016 elections? At this rate, I swear it's 2037 and one of you retards with a faded MAGA hat is going to tell me about how that Trump and Republicans won and that I should accept it. Seriously, we get it!

      Remember that the people demanding you "accept" Trump are the same ones that spent 8 years trying to defame Obama by demanding his birth certificate (even when one was provided, they wouldn't let it go).

      Personally, no leader deserves automatic support. I say judge a leader by their actions... Trump has not performed well there either.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an incompetent racist WWE character who boasted about grabbing women by the pussy

      Nice, three lies in one sentence fragment.

    8. Re: Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And invading Crimea. And invading Ukraine."

      If you're implying your fellow Russians had nothing to do with that, you're a fucking disgrace.

    9. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Remember that the people demanding you "accept" Trump are the same ones that spent 8 years trying to defame Obama by demanding his birth certificate (even when one was provided, they wouldn't let it go).

      Would that be Clinton, Russians or the right-wing? Despite the fact-checkers best efforts, and WAPO scrubbing their own article from 2008(you can find plenty of backlinks and copies) and other sites like the guardian who are all in agreement that it started under the Clinton camp when she was losing to Obama, and it was a last-ditch attempt to sway primary supporters. But the whole birther thing wasn't right-wing, just like 9/11 was an inside job wasn't wholly left-wing, or vaccines cause autism was wholly rich upperclass idiots.

      Personally, no leader deserves automatic support. I say judge a leader by their actions... Trump has not performed well there either.

      True, but if Trump hasn't preformed well what would you call the Obama administration? Because to an outsider, Obama operated like a dictator in a banana republic and his policies were so damaging to the world in general that he managed to surpass Bush's adventure into Iraq, and that's saying something. Not only did they destabilize 3 countries, but the entire EU while he was at it, but he also managed to create a massive new terrorist organization that paled to aL-queda in terms of cruelty, but then destabilized another country which has created an entirely new slave-trade in Libya. He used EO's as a tool of fiat control, and tried to bypass both the house and senate to do it. It's one of the reasons DACA is where it is now, and why so many people are vehemently against any form of amnesty. And it boils down into three camps: They can get in line like everyone else. They can be deported and pay the price for their parents stupidity and belief that democrats would somehow wrangle another 1986 amnesty which never stopped(California courts are still granting amnesty to people who weren't even in the country or born). And the oh but those poor children, we should just give them what they want and to hell with the people who are still waiting.

      That's not even touching on his economic policies which he touted as the 1% GDP as the "new normal" or millions of people who couldn't afford health insurance anymore or lost it completely.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Actually, only online propaganda and hacking has been blamed on Russia.

      And trying to hack an electrical grid. And voting machines.

      So, hacking.

      And invading Crimea. And invading Ukraine.

      You do understand that Crimea is part of Ukraine, right? Also, are you denying that Russia invaded? I mean, you're at holocaust-denial levels of denial if you are claiming Russia didn't.

      Without going to Google

      Why not? How would that change anything?

      can you name a single instance of such propaganda efforts, backed up by actual evidence and not hysterical accusations.

      Facebook and Twitter. If you are claiming those are "hysterical accusations" then you have some serious denial in your blood because both the corporations and multiple government agencies have confirmed their efforts.

      The rest of your comment veers way off topic.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton started the entire birth certificate deal, along with other democrats. Democrats love nothing but to forget that fact.

      Your second statement makes less sense. "Don't support a leader until they prove they deserve support"? Despite that the country elected them? Despite that nothing can be done at all if nobody supports them? You just want to cast judgement without offering real solutions or knowledge. Yourself and GP would do well to remember that nobody would bring up the elections from 2016 if Democrats would quit trying to pretend there was a secret scandal or hack that cost them the election. I have never once heard a conservative or Republican bring up the election controversy. Why would they? They won! It is only the losers that have reason to revisit it.

    12. Re: Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Vladimir Putin sneaked into my house, and left a deuce in my shoe!

    13. Re: Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      "And invading Crimea. And invading Ukraine."

      If you're implying your fellow Russians had nothing to do with that, you're a fucking disgrace.

      They didn't have anything to do with the United States overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine with the help of literal neo-Nazis. Which prompted the population of Crimea to vote to succeed and join Russia. This was already covered in advance....so you're fucking stupid.

    14. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And trying to hack an electrical grid. And voting machines.

      So, hacking.

      Voting machines and power plant systems aren't online. So, not online hacking.

      You do understand that Crimea is part of Ukraine, right? Also, are you denying that Russia invaded? I mean, you're at holocaust-denial levels of denial if you are claiming Russia didn't.

      You fell off the neocon turnip truck if you think they did. Russia had an existing base in Sevastopol and an agreement lasting decades into the future. If moving forces through that base constitutes an "invasion", here's a fraction of the list of countries the United States is constantly invading with troop movements:

      Cuba
      England
      Italy
      Saudi Arabia
      Japan
      South Korea
      Brazil

      Hell, Germany alone has over 30 US military installations.

      Without going to Google

      Why not? How would that change anything?

      That you're mindlessly repeating talking points without having anything to back them up (aka propaganda).

      Facebook and Twitter. If you are claiming those are "hysterical accusations" then you have some serious denial in your blood because both the corporations and multiple government agencies have confirmed their efforts.

      Not even remotely close. You look at any of these claims and they fall apart like tissue paper after a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge. Like the ZOMFG Russia paid for Facebook ads story. Except when you looked at the details, it was for a few thousand dollars, many of the ads were placed after the election, some were pitching Obama merchandise, and some were pitching a documentary criticizing Trump's golf course in Scotland.

      Y'all are insisting the Emperor is wearing clothes here, when it's been obvious to anyone who isn't a moron, born with a hole in their head, or learned a damned thing from the lies told about Iraq that he's been bare-assed naked from day one.

    15. Re:Dogs: we pooped in hallway - Russia did it! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Voting machines and power plant systems aren't online. So, not online hacking.

      Either were Iran's centrifuges. Hacking is hacking.

      You fell off the neocon turnip truck if you think they did. ...

      Congratulations on identifying yourself as a conspiracy nut!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  18. Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is something called sampling bias. If you only look for meddling by Russia in only decisions you dislike, then you can only find meddling by Russia only in decisions you dislike. e.g. If your landlord claims your apartment is filthy and is the source of the cockroaches that everyone in the building has been complaining about, and he does an extensive search for roaches in your apartment and finds some, that doesn't prove his claim. For all we know, your apartment could be the cleanest one in the building, and if he'd done the same extensive search on the other apartments he would've found a lot more roaches. But by searching only your unit, he's abusing sampling bias - cherry picking data by only looking in certain places - to try to make it appear as if you're the one at fault.*

    If you want to investigate something like this in an objective manner, you need to look for meddling into all big political decisions by all foreign powers. This includes meddling by Facebook (a US corporation) abusing sampling bias to try to discredit the UK Brexit vote via a press release that millions if not tens of millions of Britons will hear about in the news..

    * In this case the statistical error (by Facebook) is intentional. But sampling bias can creep in unintentionally too. The classic example is a surveyor tasked with finding out how many hours city residents ride the subway on average, so the city can make better decisions on if subway service should be expanded. He starts off by asking random people on the street how often they ride the subway each week. He grows frustrated that most people don't ride the subway at all, making it difficult for him to gather the required minimum number of positive responses to minimize the margin of error. Then he's struck with inspiration. He'll simply got aboard a subway train and ask the riders how many hours they ride each week. Since everyone on the subway must be subway riders, that'll neatly filter out all the non-riders he's been wasting his time with.

    The problem is when you ask people riding on the subway instead of random people on the street, the odds of you encountering a heavy subway user are higher. e.g. If 80% of subway riders ride the subway 1 hour a week, and 20% ride it 10 hours a week, you are 2.5x as likely to sample a 10 hr/wk rider than you are a 1 hr/wk rider simply because they're on the subway a lot longer. So the statistical data you gather this way ends up biased high by your sampling method.

    1. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, it makes perfect sense to scrutinise tactics more closely if they actually worked. If Russians had hypothetically meddled to try to get a "yes" in the Scottish independence vote, that wouldn't be as big a deal because it didn't work.

      Same if they had tried to engineer a Bernie Sanders victory.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      This is not sampling bias. It's answering a question that is less general than the question you're asking. To wit, did Russia influence the Brexit election to a large degree? Totally different questions are "Did Russia influence other elections" and "Did France influence the Brexit vote".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There is also outliers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in association with very large numbers of samples. Start with big enough numbers and the tiniest percentage becomes a large number. So start with a trillion posts and how many posts, fit in any claim will end up being a large number, in the hundreds of thousands but as a percentage it is pretty much invisible, an outlier to be ignored. Now create that large number outlier, like say 10,000 people with shared interests, make one post per day, which is nothing, 10,000 people sharing an interest is a tiny percentage of the say 1,000,000,000 that's a billion (Facebooks claim) and yet that is 365,000 posts the number that is pushed forward to make it sound like a lot but if you look at the starting number 1 billion people making on average 10 posts per day and times it again by 365 days in a year, in that big number 3.65 trillion posts, almost anything can be found in sizeable numbers tends of thousands and in reality be statistically insignificant empty outliers, especially taking into account context or purposeful obscuration of context so for example jokes can be treated as real, satire becomes fact and basically anything can become anything else when you start with a sufficiently large number and present tiny tiny outliers as significant ie 365,000 post out of 3.65 trillion posts 0.00001% if they count that percent as significant, well, it is a lie. All they will talk about is numbers with out talking about the reality.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was being done by a group with a shred of credibility they might consider your valid points. However this is Facebook, and the conclusion was already reached over a year ago when the deeply leftist company joined the "resistance".

      Tomorrow will be the 440th day of the great tantrum.

      As you can imagine many of us stopped listening to such stories long ago.

    5. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      When the Times of London reported that researchers who were working on an another study had identified 156,252 Twitter accounts with Russian as their language, had posted messages in English to argue against the European Union during the Brexit referendum, was that sampling bias? This is international politics not statistics or science with complex cases of cause and effect.

      See: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/art...

      Russian Twitter accounts posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in 48 hours during last year’s referendum in an apparently co-ordinated attempt to sow discord, The Times can reveal.

      More than 150,000 accounts based in Russia, which had previously confined their posts to subjects such as the Ukrainian conflict, switched attention to Brexit in the days leading up to last year’s vote, according to research for an upcoming paper by data scientists at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley.

    6. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you only look for meddling by Russia in only decisions you dislike, then you can only find meddling by Russia only in decisions you dislike

      We know that a lot of fake Russian accounts were just sowing discord, not targeting particular issues. In the US they have pretended to be BLM and AntiFa on one hand, and neo Nazis and Trump supporters on the other. They understand that a heavily polarized and divided country full of misinformation tends to break our fragile democracies, which are basically winner takes all.

      A lot of the fake UK accounts were just spouting xenophobic rubbish to stir up anger. A smaller number advocated for Brexit directly, usually pretending to be people from outside London in order to push the "out-of-touch political elite" narrative.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, the Brits generally are quite xenophobic anyway so there is no real need to stir up anything.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      The thing is, I suspect most people that voted to leave the EU don't follow Russian twitter accounts. I voted to leave and I follow no twitter accounts.

      Meanwhile there were a large number of British politicians and other public figures speaking very eloquently (and/or talking out of their arse) about leaving the EU. The vote to leave happened because a large number of British people were genuinely unhappy with the state of the country and didn't need Russia or anybody else to tell them that something needed to change.

      Had the EU shown even the slightest willingness to change then the vote could easily have turned out differently. That's not Russia's influence.

    9. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The Brits say a lot that's xenophobic, especially regarding the French, but if you look at their actions there's remarkably little xenophobia going on.

      The population of London is down to 45% White British, that doesn't exactly sound to me like foreigners are unwelcome. That sounds to me like the capital of my own country is more foreign than native.

      Where are the gangs of Brits roaming the cities across the nation, hunting down foreigners and assaulting them? They don't exist.
      Where are the managers and company owners refusing to hire foreign workers? They don't exist.
      Where are the people demanding forced repatriation of anybody not born in the UK? They're meeting in small pub rooms, decried by the general population, gaining no traction politically.

      While Brits may seem xenophobic it's mainly because we have the confidence to take the piss out of everybody, including ourselves. We're actually one of the most welcoming countries on the planet.

    10. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Where are the gangs of Brits roaming the cities across the nation, hunting down foreigners and assaulting them? They don't exist.

      Liar.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      http://www.dw.com/en/britain-s...

      Where are the managers and company owners refusing to hire foreign workers? They don't exist.

      Liar.

      https://www.theguardian.com/po...

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      Where are the people demanding forced repatriation of anybody not born in the UK? They're meeting in small pub rooms, decried by the general population, gaining no traction politically.

      Pants on fire.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      https://www.theguardian.com/po...

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you found isolated incidents that aren't indicative of the broader British population. You fucking hero.

      There are more 'minority on minority' hate crimes than 'white british on minority' hate crimes, and just as many 'minority on white british' hate crimes. Again, that's not indicative of the population at large.

    12. Re: Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many reasonable arguments on here saying the Russians didn't do anything and if they did, it had no effect.

    13. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. You don't "know" this, Facebook told you this.
      2. Facebook is known to not be entirely forthcoming about its dealings with governments (e.g. transferring a copy of everything to the NSA - users are not notified).
      3. Facebook and other tech companies were actively pressured by the US legislative to come up with proof of "Russian" meddling.
      4. "Sowing discord" is about the least clear-cut description of content you can come up with.
      5. "Russian accounts" - are these "accounts created on order of the Russian government"? Not really; more like "accounts which may have created via IP addresses in Russia".
      6. Your claim that social divisions are problems exacerbated/stirred up by foreign antagonists is rather scary, and quite reminiscent of totalitarian political currents. Also, in the US, it isn't "winner takes all", as the president can do little without solid support in the legislature, which is bicameral and gets replaced gradually and out-of-sync with the president. And that's not to mention the judiciary.
      7. Your claims are not quite coherent. If the "fake accounts" advocated for multiple conflicting positions, how does that constitute promotion of a single candidate?

    14. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      How do you know if the account was a Russian (largely automated) bot or not? They were identified as Russian it the account had Russian as the profile language, but the Brexit tweets were in English. And then there is the issue of retweets by humans.

      Also Twitter has stated that Russian-backed accounts spent $1,031.99 to buy six Brexit-related ads on its platform during Brexit.

    15. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by greythax · · Score: 1

      And it did turn out differently once people were aware of the facts involved and not the passions that were inflamed. Or is there some other reason for May's disastrous attempt to consolidate her power for her party with her so called "brexit election." Turns out facebook rage can only sustain you so long if your policies are crap. But seemingly, they can play a big part in getting you elected.

    16. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you referring to the election in which 82% of voters supported a party that backs leaving the EU?

      You're right, it did turn out differently. Far far greater support than at the referendum.

    17. Re:Why look behind this curtain in particular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's referring to the election where May's party went from having 330 seats to 317...

  19. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks for that, Ivan. Always good to know what Putin's St Petersburg astroturf army is thinking

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't bother trying to explain anything to them. Their delusion is too deep. Just watch and laugh. That's what I did when I saw this headline.

  21. Hold on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is the left for or against private companies dicking around in political matters now?

    1. Re:Hold on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's whoever has the most cash.

  22. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks for that, Ivan. Always good to know what Putin's St Petersburg astroturf army is thinking

    It's pretty hard to figure out what the left's astroturfing army is thinking these days. Either it's russians everywhere, including under your bed. Or it's nazi's everywhere, including under your bed. I bet psychiatrists are making a mint though.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  23. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any reasonable person would be concerned about evidence of destabalising posting on open western media. You forget that it is a primary attack method of the Russian military and that their internet is tightly controlled. The evidence is likely to show external posts of strongly emotional appeals to both sides of any political dispute in order to break down the cohesiveness of our society.

    Given many posts here they are doing a great job. We used to be largely content with voting to determine our politics and today there are many souces openly calling for civil war. Anywhere that there has actually been a civil war recently has a destroyed economy so I would not dismiss this method of attack quite so glibly.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  24. Why not waste money on education? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a better idea to properly educate your population instead of wasting all these millions on useless investigations.

  25. Re:Our "leaders" upset because we didn't choose th by coastwalker · · Score: 1

    You forget that the Russians and other countries control what gets on their internet. Are you suggesting that we too should have a great firewall and hundreds of thousands of government workers removing posts from the internet?

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  26. facebook should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...investigate their own meddling in world affairs, banning conservative accounts, deleting conservative posts, etc, etc.

    oh...wait...

  27. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    It would be a lot more believable if there were any signs of using EFFECTIVE methods of countering Russian propaganda. A commonly stated goal of Russia is to undermine faith in western democracies. Instead of changing policies to restore faith, they are using Russia to avoid actually implementing populist agendas.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  28. They should start with probing... by SigIO · · Score: 2

    ...who's interest is it in with depopulating Syria, and causing the refugee mess in Europe.

  29. Re:Trump won, get over it. by coastwalker · · Score: 2

    Brexit is a seperate issue to American elections, do read the summary before posting !

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  30. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you think that's bad, try to figure out the Right. Nazis are good decent folks and Russians fund the NRA.

    What a twisted country you live in.

  31. Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quick look at your slashdot history is all it takes to see you've become more sock than puppet, king neckbeard

    1. Re:Your Slashdot history betrays you by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1, Troll

      My slashdot history is full of posts asking for Donald Trump to be shot into the sun. I'm not a sockpuppet, I just hate losers who continue to use failed strategies, especially when those strategies get in the way of actual left wing policies being passed. Get rid of the Clintonites and replace them with actual progressives, and Trump and his ilk don't stand a chance.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's do the failed socialist experience to again, except this time let's do it on the biggest and most successful nation ever to grace the planet so we can fuck up everything so badly the whole world will suffer. That'll show em for trying to leave their leftist socialist commie shitholes and go to western caplitalst successful nations.

    3. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0, Troll

      Economically, most of what I'm asking for is to go back to the immense success of America before Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer-riddled idiocy implemented some bullshit written on the back of a napkin while Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the room, because you can't do anything stupid in America without them, apparently. Hell, Bernie's platform only winded the clock back to roughly Ronnie's FIRST term.

      So please, spare me your bullshit.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Omg, you're a Berner.

      We're done here. There's no point in trying to discuss politics or economics with communist minions.

    5. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Of course we're done here. You're so fucking illiterate that you consider Ronald Reagan's tax brackets "communist."

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone but you is a communist. Do you even know what these words mean? I'm guessing not.

    7. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by another_twilight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      failed socialist experience to again

      (emphasis mine)

      I'm curious, what/when was the last 'experience' (do you mean experiment?)?

      most successful nation

      Not by a lot of metrics; less so than in the past and falling.

      Some progressive policies =/= socialism. Some well-regulated and limited social policies =/= socialism. Criticism of the excesses of capitalism =/= socialism. Calling for limitations or regulation of capitalism =/= socialism.

      Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism (or the closest approximations that have arisen) work particularly well for anyone but the small group who come to accumulate power. Identifying the areas of society that are best allowed to operate as a (regulated) free market, and those areas that are better run as (limited and well defined) social services is more successful, by a number of measures.

      Challenging where to draw those lines is essential to prevent the excesses of an imbalance in either direction, and to that end debate and argument is useful.

      Tribalism, partisanship or a refusal to accept any 'dilution' of a position, or compromise with different points of view is not.

    8. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd like to personally thank you for the election of Donald Trump. Who needs Russians when you have thousands of actual American Bernie supporters ready and willing to behave like smug, condescending assholes that pushed a generation of apolitical moderates hard right?

    9. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an apolitical moderate who is registered independent, I didn't vote because Bernie wasn't on the ticket.

      Next time, given the choice, I'll just vote for what isn't the GOP.

      This current idiot is intolerable. Hillary, Bernie, whoever, dont care. Anyone but this and the party that supports it.

      Good luck in November, enjoy your myopic victory.

    10. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Communist it was not, but socialist certainly. Socialism for the rich.

    11. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's do the failed socialist experience to again, except this time let's do it on the biggest and most successful nation ever to grace the planet so we can fuck up everything so badly the whole world will suffer.

      NO! Not the China, please! Don't push China into socialism ... oh, wait.

    12. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'd like to, but you'd be wrong. America was shouting at the top of their lungs for populism, and the Dems rigged the primary for the most status quo candidate possible.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    13. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism (or the closest approximations that have arisen) work particularly well for anyone but the small group who come to accumulate power. Identifying the areas of society that are best allowed to operate as a (regulated) free market, and those areas that are better run as (limited and well defined) social services is more successful, by a number of measures.

      This. Almost all nations run mixed economies because they work. It should be noted that a pure socialism (communism) has been tried and failed... However a pure capitalism hasn't even gotten off the ground, each and every time it's failed before even starting. Both extremes fail for the same reason, they requires every single person to think in exactly the same way and believe in exactly the same things.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some progressive policies =/= socialism. Some well-regulated and limited social policies =/= socialism. Criticism of the excesses of capitalism =/= socialism. Calling for limitations or regulation of capitalism =/= socialism.

      Actually they do. Socialism =/= communism. Socialism is simply shared ownership of resources. A company owned by its employees (stock options, or like Costco) is socialism.

      Socialism is not a system of government. You're confusing socialism with communism, an authoritarian government based on enforced socialism.

      Socialism is only a dirty word in the US, because the public equates it with the cold war and authoritarian governments. Nothing could be further from the truth. As you say, we are a mixed system with many socialist elements to temper pure capitalism (minimum wage, max working hours, paid holidays, sick leave, etc).

      The sooner we get over our irrational knee-jerk aversion to the word 'socialism', the sooner we can meaningfully discuss how to pragmatically solve current problems instead of name calling.

    15. Re: Your Slashdot history betrays you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > However a pure capitalism hasn't even gotten off the ground, each and every time it's failed before even starting.

      Pure capitalism would inevitable turn into a feudal state where the feudal lords get anything they want (at the time, checked only by the Church). Right now, they want open borders and open immigration. That'll gut the US economy and drive down wages.

      The one guy who suggested that maybe this should reigned in got shit on by all political corners (by the business faction that wants money, by libertarians who freak out at the idea of government power, by liberals who want those immigrant votes). And yet he won the Presidency.

  32. Greatest Political Firm in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the Internet Research Agency is the greatest political consulting firm in the world. With just a few thousand Facebook ads and Twitter messages, it was able to sway the Brexit vote and US Presidential election. Why spend a hundred million or more paying ineffective pussy established firms while you can get Russia's IRA for a few thousand rubles?

    1. Re: Greatest Political Firm in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it buys you a couple of points swing which was enough for Trump and Brexit. The downside is that it's illegal in proper democracies and may come with severe consequences if you're found out. Of course in sham democracies like Russia, these restrictions don't apply or aren't enforced.

  33. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet this is only relevant when liberal causes fail.

    When non-liberal causes fail, it's on their merits. When liberal causes fail, it's because someone was cheated and bamboozled. Britain is still trying to figure out how to undo the EU vote -- ironically on the eve of France's president saying that France would vote the same way -- just as the media is trying to play up anything to discredit Trump's victory, including Facebook tampering from Russia.

    From the actual evidence though, Russia spent an estimated $100,000 and it did not solely target either candidate, which discredits the narrative outright. Furthermore, if Russia was able to steer an election where the campaign to elect Hillary spent more than $1,400,000,000 (that's $1.4 BILLION) and the same for Trump spent more than $950,000,000.

    If $100,000 is actually what won the US election, due to some destabilizing ads (the same work that the West does in other areas), then the West is screwed and beyond saving already. But in reality, these kind of ads went to low-information voters that tend to vote along party lines anyway. If you actually saw one of those ads, then you shouldn't be questioning why Russia is tampering (that should be obvious), rather you should be questioning why they think you were susceptible enough to such lowbrow ads.

    These platforms -- mostly Facebook and Twitter -- are keeping themselves in the news because it helps them, and probably a bunch of them are dumb enough to believe that this is what swayed the election because they don't know anyone that could have voted for X. They see that as a measurement of their own intelligence rather than being completely out of touch. Now the mission is helping those poor buffoons who voted for X, so that this never happens again.

    These platforms should stop allowing such ads to be run, period. Not just trying to steer the narrative, which is their new goal.

  34. Re:So, seriously by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Russia's goal is probably to keep the American voting public disunited. It is in their best interest to keep each half of the population thinking that the other half are un-American traitors.

    What should make you angry is that it doesn't take much, since the politicians, cable commentators, and Internet comment sections do most of the work already. Just a few nudges are required.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  35. Education vs Meddling ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So
    * A government spends mega dollar$ educating the sheeple over many years.
    * Someone spends a few dollars buying some Ads on facebook.
    * A government worries a large enough percentage of its educated sheeple are being subverted into wrong think by scrolling past an Ad on facebook and subconciously looking at it for a few milliseconds.

    Conclusions?
    * A government thinks most of its sheeple are just plain stupid - education system has failed.
    * The sheeple have been programmed perfectly - but the government didnt suspect other people would use them for there own purposes.
    * Its all just a load of BS.

  36. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Any reasonable person would be concerned about evidence of destabalising posting on open western media.

    That's not what a reasonable person would do in the USA, but that's been promoted by various partisan sources as a theory to great consternation.

    Freedom of expression has consequences. You either subscribe to the will of The People to govern themselves with free exchange of ideas (ostensibly through forms of speech) or you subscribe to the belief that it's ultimately not freedom of expression that's virtuous, but some sort of isolated echo chamber. If speech itself can become tainted with the ideas that are contrary to their intended meaning (due to clever wordplay, misinformation, etc), without some authoritative body with oversight, is it really freedom of expression anymore?

  37. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe me, we know Trump won. It hasn't stopped Trump blaming the Democrats for everything.

  38. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Brexit is a seperate issue to American elections, do read the summary before posting !

    It would be interesting to know if there was a Russian effort to trick people into voting for Brexit. It is probably too late to change, but it is not too late to fight future propaganda.

    One thing people forget about the American elections was that Americans created the conditions that the propaganda and fake news could thrive, and many of them had (R)s next to their names. I presume you had similar conditions during Brexit, at least from what I recall of world elections lately..

    Twitter should do the work, even if they have to hire people. Britain should, if required, foot the bill, to make sure it gets done. Truth does take effort, and sometimes it is a monetary one...

  39. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Jeff Sessions stopped cracking down on doobies you might get your wish.

  40. Stupidity of the Left has no limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title says it all.

  41. How stupid are you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to not know that Democrats not only aren't left, they're hard-core right wingers frequently more extreme than the GOP?

    1. Re:How stupid are you... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      ...to not know that Democrats not only aren't left, they're hard-core right wingers frequently more extreme than the GOP?

      It all depends on the perspective of the observer. To probably the vast majority in the EU, both US political Partys are far-Right. The Democrats in the US tried to move the Overton Window too far, too fast, and the result was a backlash that got us Trump (I would have preferred Cruz or maybe Paul).

      "Right" and "Left" are rather meaningless terms from the perspective of the regular citizen. One can picture it as a diagram using a pair of horizontal parallel lines resembling train tracks, with one "rail" representing the Right and the other the "Left", with Anarchy at one end of the scale and Total Tyranny at the other.

      How authoritarian any system may be is a much more practical metric from the individulal's perspective. Collectivist forms like Socialism, Communism, and Fascism all share the common trait of a strong centralized command and control design which, by their very nature, must be more authoritarian.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  42. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *notsies

  43. Russia Spent £0.73 During Brexit Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There have been a lot of media reports of massive Russian meddling in the Brexit campaign, but the first investigation found they spent £0.73:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/12/13/facebook-russians-spent-just-73-pence-ads-brexit-campaign/

    Of course, this didn't stop the left wing media claiming there was Russian involvement. Sure, if they spent £0.73 then there was Russian involvement, but the scale of involvement has been intentionally misrepresented.

    What the leftists can't seem to handle is that Brexit and Trump occurred, not because of Russian meddling or because people were tricked, but because a great many people wanted them to happen. If the leftists left their echo chambers for a brief moment, they might actually realise that.

    At least Macron understands that people genuinely don't like the left wing agenda. When asked if given a vote on the EU would the French vote to leave, he said "probably":

    https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/955019112031244288

    Of course, the French will never get a vote. After the March elections it may well be that Italy do get a vote, and that would really get the ball rolling.

  44. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything that's still fucked up that is, and he's right.

  45. Russians, Russians everywhere! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for Facebook to investigate if Russians made Han Solo shoot first...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  46. Re: Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Classic republican personal responsibility: Blame the guys who control nothing.

  47. Re:So, seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Russia is running CNN, Huffpo, Fox, etc? Russia is programming these university professors to call for white genocide? Because those entities are the ones I see as blatantly attempting to cause division among the people. Yet none of the Russiagate screamers ever point their blame cannons at those. So either they're completely ignorant, or they're liars with a different agenda than they claim.

  48. In before you 'refute' this with racism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, it makes perfect sense to scrutinise tactics more closely if they actually worked.

    Of course it makes sense. People wouldn't fall prey to sampling bias unless it appeared to make perfect sense to do so.

    But you've also fallen prey to anchoring bias, so you're stuck on the first conclusion you've come to, and you won't even look to see who else might be meddling.

    1. Re:In before you 'refute' this with racism. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      No, no, not at all. Russia is just the only foreign actor that we have some evidence for. It's very possible that others are trying with varying levels of success and varying levels of having been caught.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:In before you 'refute' this with racism. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  49. lol? by superwiz · · Score: 0

    For GB to complain about manipulating anyone's internal affairs is beyond hypcritical. Britain ran an empire based on manipulating internal affairs of unsuspecting colonies. It still uses subtle levers of influence and plausible deniability to set people against each other all the while putting "mother england" on some sort of pedestal. England lives chiefly through its alliances. BBC meddles in internal affairs of former colonies on regular basis under the guise of covering "foreign affairs". The fact that Russian IT companies are being used by anonymous foreign interests to launder (anonymize) their information campaign is in no way an indication of Russia itself using an influence. Russia simply doesn't have anything to gain from it.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:lol? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Russia simply doesn't have anything to gain from it.

      *snort*

      That has to be one of the very silliest assertions I've seen yet this morning, and the sun won't even be up for another hour and a half.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:lol? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      "you are stupid" is not an argument. Russia doesn't produce anything. It's main export is natural resources. It doesn't have anything to gain from reducing output level of industrial countries. Russia's main competition are other resource exporters. If you want to buy into the world view that Russia is an enemy, you buying into the game which was played when scarcity of food was determining factor in power. The 19th century is over. Russia does not gain anything by having industrial countries turn on each other.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:lol? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Britain ran an empire based on manipulating internal affairs of unsuspecting colonies.

      Oh please, don't be stupid. The colonies were pretty fucking aware, what with Britain taking a direct hand in ruling them.

      It still uses subtle levers of influence and plausible deniability to set people against each other all the while putting "mother england" on some sort of pedestal.

      We call this diplomacy. Everybody does it, but that doesn't stop everybody from also decrying everybody else doing it.

      England lives chiefly through its alliances.

      England barely legally exists. I think you mean the UK, and I think you'll find the alliances, trade and military projection are intertwined and collectively establish the nation and its position in the world. Much the same as every other country out there.

      BBC meddles in internal affairs of former colonies on regular basis under the guise of covering "foreign affairs"

      Trust me, the BBC meddles in foreign affairs at nothing like the rate with which it meddles in internal UK ones.

      The fact that Russian IT companies are being used by anonymous foreign interests to launder (anonymize) their information campaign is in no way an indication of Russia itself using an influence. Russia simply doesn't have anything to gain from it.

      Ah. Now you lose all credibility. Of course Russia benefits from a destabilised and less effective EU. Shit, their whole Ukrainian strategy is driven by their desire not to have a stronger EU right up against their border.

    4. Re:lol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring political ideology. Russia has done numerous things that were economic nonsense because its ideological priorities dictated.

    5. Re:lol? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't understand their motives doesn't mean they don't make sense given their priorities. Their politics change entirely based on pragmatic considerations simply because they are too poor to operate inefficiently. They can't afford the luxury of lofty ideals at the expense of poor economic decisions. We can enjoy the mindset of a middle-class couple whose credit cards are maxed, but who still hold 2 good job. RF has to have the mindset of a single mother whose car has been reposesed twice in the last 20 years.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:lol? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      just to add to the above: it is simply not true that RF government acts as ideologues. They are not driven by political ideology -- only pragmatism.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  50. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's such a nothing why have they all been caught lying about it?

  51. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's more like, "Lots of us keep hearing hearing funny noises from under the bed... Don't you think we should get a torch and have a peek under there?"

    Your response is something like, "There's nothing under the bed because we say so--and don't you dare even look under it."

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  52. Re:Our "leaders" upset because we didn't choose th by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

    We have facebook and twitter for that.

  53. The Russians at my homework! by JackAxe · · Score: 1

    EVERYONE RUN! This ludicrous-excuse is out of control! AARrRHRHggGgHGHghghGHGHGHhHhhHHHhhhHHH!

    1. Re:The Russians at my homework! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Re:The Russians at my homework!

      A shame that David Davis didn't think of that excuse.

  54. Russia's bot attacks against the USA continue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the fact that Donald Treason refuses to acknowledge Russian attacks on our country:

    The #SchumerShutdown Hashtag Is Getting A Big Boost From Russian Bots
    The GOP slogan is now the top trending hashtag being promoted by Russian influence operators on Twitter.

    By Jennifer Bendery

    JORGE SILVA / REUTERS
    WASHINGTON As lawmakers wage a messaging war over who caused the government shutdown, Republicans and the White House are getting a big boost in their efforts to blame Democrats for the mess â from the Russians.

    #SchumerShutdown - the hashtag that GOP leaders and the White House are using to accuse Democrats of causing the shutdown - on Sunday night became the top trending hashtag being promoted by Russian bots and trolls on Twitter, according to the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a project led by former top national security officials from both parties.

    Hereâ(TM)s a chart by Alliance for Securing Democracy, last updated at 10 p.m. Sunday, showing the #SchumerShutdown hashtag blowing up among Russia-linked influence networks.

    ALLIANCE FOR SECURING DEMOCRACY
    #SchumerShutdown has surpassed #ReleaseTheMemo as the highest trending hashtag among Russian influence campaigns. The campaigned seized on that hashtag earlier this month in an effort to pressure Republican lawmakers to release a classified memo written by House GOP aides that allegedly describes abuses in FBI surveillance practices. Conservative organizations like Breitbart and the Daily Caller have given major coverage to the memo, but Democratic lawmakers have denounced it as deeply misleading.

    Alliance for Securing Democracy tracks activity from 600 monitored Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations. It has found that Russian bots and trolls frequently amplify content attacking the United States, conspiracy theories and misinformation.

    citation provided When whining about the source try to find a single inaccurate claim. Thanks.

    1. Re:Russia's bot attacks against the USA continue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, he MARRIED a Russian. Of COURSE he has ties.
       
      It is indisputable Russia hacked into each and every voter and made them vote for him. Indisputable.
       
      He needs to be tried under the

  55. Re:Our "leaders" upset because we didn't choose th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not. I'm simply saying anybody who doesn't like this is a fucking hypocrite if they support any of our past actions overseas outside of very particular self defense scenarios (maybe the world wars in other words or if you go back farther you might find some other wars where the US was invaded, attacked, or threatened, but many of those wars were also really us invading other nations, ie many native american nations pre-date the colonial powers invading).

  56. Re: Trump won, get over it. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    No, we but we did begin to suspect that there was at least one thing Trump wasn't lying about, after all...

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  57. Re:So, seriously by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    So Russia is running Huffpo, Fox, etc?

    I deleted the one that made the comment look a bit stupid.

    Of course not. Russia doesn't have to run MSNBC or Fox News. Americans have mostly turned on each other on their own after there was no common enemy left at the end of the Cold War (although this round of division has its origin in the 1970s in the wake of the Southern Strategy, Watergate, and the Powell Memorandum). Russia only has to nudge things a little.

    You can't actually make someone cheat on their partner. You can only amplify what is already there.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  58. CNN: Russiaâ(TM)s all we talk about but voter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  59. Re: Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Muslim refugees kicked out by unelected authoritarians, right?

    Besides, everyone knows the biggest threat to British society is plumbers from Poland.

  60. Oh, the irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > May has said Russia's attempts to "sow discord" in the West could not go unchallenged, and warned Vladimir Putin, "We know what you are up to."

    What she really means is "we're busy screwing up Britain ourselves and don't need Mr Putin's help".

  61. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch out! An evil Russian is behind every tree!

    Or maybe evil facebook wants to smear the Russian government. Why should we trust facebook's evidence? Are there any other sources for Russia's involvement.

  62. No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    I can tell you the view from ground zero, the people who voted for Brexit are not even able to use Facebook. They rely on the talk at the pub, and there they had the Romanians and Bulgarians to blame (highly visible as construction workers). Later the Bulgarian politicians started to make noise so only the Romanians were blamed.

    Brexit is nothing more than the voice of racism and for that there is not need for Russia or Farcebook to stir it.

    1. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Cederic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Brexit is nothing more than the voice of racism

      It's only the fucking idiots that keep telling everybody they're racist that think that.

      Perhaps if the country had been able to properly debate the impacts of immigration and bring it under control without being accused of racism then people wouldn't have felt disenfranchised and used their one opportunity to vote against a status quo that didn't recognise or represent their interests.

    2. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem was that the country did have the debate, immigration was found to be filling jobs British workers didn't want and was benefiting the country as a whole, but the racists didn't like that answer so continued to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend foreigners were responsible for every problem Britain has, instead of the real problem of inept leadership by the chinless in government and industry.

    3. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the people who voted for Brexit are not even able to use Facebook

      Pompous bullshit.

    4. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Laxator2 · · Score: 2

      There was a lot of debate before that, and it was dominated by Nigel Farage fanning the flames of racism. There was no reasonable discussion, just blame thrown at the immigrants.

      If you want debate in Britain, just talk to Jo Cox about it. That's right, she cannot talk since she was assassinated just before the Brexit vote, and for what ?

      For being moderate and not joining the chorus of voices blaming the immigrants.

    5. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Romanians are a race now? WTF? When did this happen?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, calm down. Everyone loves not being able to get on the housing ladder, or actually made it but have a 10x salary mortgage underwritten by their soon to be pensioner parents. Just wait until that 1.25% interest rate starts to rise as loan money won't be free forever.

      It's funny Russia is being pushed as the baddies over and over by the same corporations that sponsored both losing sides with billions. And how does a few alleged social media accounts compare to the most powerful man on the planet (Obama or his controllers) telling the UK they're going straight to the back of the queue if they dare vote for independence from the crumbling EU. Heck, even the Polish had seen the light and want out.

      Now ask those in the USA this: will you accept the entire American continent being able to enter your country, get free housing, food stamps and other benefits, while your own property because a scarce resource preventing you young ones from ever affording a home. Think San Diego pricing across the nation. Your schools will also have to go Halal without the public being consulted, even if torturing animals to death is illegal. You think a few Mexicans sneaking in is bad, imagine how many would be heading north if there was no barrier to entry and you, the tax payer, had to pay for their living.

    7. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There was a lot of debate before that, and it was dominated by Nigel Farage fanning the flames of racism. There was no reasonable discussion, just blame thrown at the immigrants.

      You mean it didn't have anything to do with the police and government turning a blind eye to immigrants raping young white girls? Or "sharia only" zones being pushed by muslims? Or a decade or so of an muslim preacher openly agitating terrorism in the UK? Or on, and on and on? Where people rightly or wrongly feel like they've become foreigners in their own city?

      If you want debate in Britain, just talk to Jo Cox about it. That's right, she cannot talk since she was assassinated just before the Brexit vote, and for what ? For being moderate and not joining the chorus of voices blaming the immigrants.

      No, not being moderate. Because the government was and is failing it's own citizens, and someone had enough and killed her. Her death was a direct result of policies by the government in the UK over the years. I'm not saying it's correct, right, or anything else. But you're failing to see that there is an undercurrent in the UK where some people see no hope. Some people are able to flee, head to other countries. Others on the other hand see the government as the enemy because the government has done things to make itself their enemy. And the more that the government pushes against people, and they silence people, and the police act as cenors? The worse it will get.

      This is fundamentally different then people who are agitating for a new political order. This is what the breakdown in the social contract looks like and the start of a societies collapse looks like.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re: No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously know nothing about the UK except the twisted version you see on RT.

    9. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We see what you write and haven't forgotten your name. You have always been racist. You're a loudly barking guilty dog.

    10. Re: No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You obviously know nothing about the UK except the twisted version you see on RT.

      What the AC says: "The mainstream press, telegraph, independent, spectator, bbc, dailymail, etc., are RT." Obviously I know nothing, except what the UK media itself says.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re: No need, they have the Romanians to blame by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      The British working class saw clearly that they had been displaced from their livelihoods by cheap imported labor - of different nationality but arguably the same "race".

      Seeing the cause of their destitution in public policy, the disinherited workers voted for a plausible if uncertain remedy. This greatly displeased the financial elite and their sycophants in the nomenklatura. For they were making a tidy little profit selling their country up the river.

      So they cranked up the semi-official propaganda organs and started slandering the masses of workers as racists. Even though it was those very nomenklaturists who were actively engaging in (racist? or just race to the bottom?) employment discrimination against their own countrymen.

    12. Re:No need, they have the Romanians to blame by slashdotiscompromisd · · Score: 0

      these animals calling everyone a racist are just proving that being racist has good aspects that are not intrinsically linked to bad aspects

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  63. Ironic by ytene · · Score: 2

    In the specific case of Brexit, there are two different challenges to consider.

    The first is whether or not *any* foreign government had the ability to influence the preferences of the British people when it came to the vote. I notice that much discussion is being given to the potential for Russian meddling, but I also note that nobody batted an eye when Barak Obama not only made very pro-Brexit comments, but also made it very clear that if Britain elected to vote to leave, then Britain would be put to "the back of the queue" when it came to negotiating a trade deal with the US.

    Or how about the fact that the government of the day spent literally millions of pounds of Tax-Payers money to fund their part of the campaign, by physically posting their views to every single household in the country via a mail-dropped leaflet. This was clearly an attempt at influencing public opinion, and the money to do so was spent only by the "Remain" campaign, because that happened to be the position taken by the Prime Minister of the day [not even the "Government of the Day", seeing as how numerous ministers favoured leaving].

    So the first issue is a pretty specious point, really. However accurate and however valid the point is, it's largely irrelevant to point to some underhand foreign government meddling in the Brexit vote when the standing UK Government of the day were tilting the odds so far the other way...

    The second point concerns the foundation of democracy itself. The final Brexit vote was split 52:48 (%) in favour of leaving the EU. This vote, which was operated on 100% democratic principles [i.e. of "one person, one vote" - and not the "first pass the post" method used for UK General Elections], was a significantly stronger vote in favour of an outcome than any UK General Election in living memory. For example, when David Cameron [who was Prime Minister at the time] won his second term in office, he secured 44% of the popular vote.

    44%. The Brexit vote secured 52% - an outright majority. Yet Cameron was returned to Government with a large majority... Even more curiously, nobody demanded a recount or a second General Election even though he only won 44% of the vote... [OK, cheeky argument, since the two events were handled under different rules]. But the point stands.

    You only have to look at the way that political elites have reacted to the vote - one in which the British people had the temerity to vote for what they actually wanted - to see how important this vote was. Since the decision was made the EU has gone out of it's way to try and bully, cajole, frighten or threaten the UK into having a second Referendum to overturn the first decision.

    Whether or not you agree with the decision to leave the EU, this external force from the EU, which is a million times worse than any influence Russia could have brought to bear, must be resisted at ALL costs. If the UK caves then there is nothing to stop the EU from becoming a totalitarian state - which might sound a bit melodramatic, but consider the significance of a state which simply sets aside democratic decisions because they are not what the elite wants.

    We would do well to remember that the more we allow ourselves to be torn up by this, the better it is for Russia or any foreign state with an axe to grind.

    Hilary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 Presidential Election, but didn't undermine the electoral process with protest court cases. The UK should look to that example and respect the decision.

    And if the UK or other countries want to make material improvements, then there is nothing to stop them from putting more effort into stamping out voting fraud, is there? Don't see much on that topic...

    1. Re:Ironic by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Barak Obama not only made very pro-Brexit comments, but also made it very clear that if Britain elected to vote to leave, then Britain would be put to "the back of the queue" when it came to negotiating a trade deal with the US.

      It's rather different for POTUS to respond to questions from journalists, and for Russia to create a clandestine propaganda operation to create fake social media accounts. One is done in the open with full knowledge of who is speaking and in what context, the other is deliberately designed to mislead.

      And as it happens Obama was right. Despite what Trump later said, he seems to have little interest in the UK and any possible trade deal is likely to be a low priority and extremely shitty. In fact he mentions France about 3x as often in tweets as he mentions the UK.

      This vote, which was operated on 100% democratic principles [i.e. of "one person, one vote" - and not the "first pass the post" method used for UK General Elections], was a significantly stronger vote in favour of an outcome than any UK General Election in living memory. For example, when David Cameron [who was Prime Minister at the time] won his second term in office, he secured 44% of the popular vote.

      Those things are not compatible, because in the referendum there were only two options and in the GE there were at least 3 options in every constituency, often more.

      Since the decision was made the EU has gone out of it's way to try and bully, cajole, frighten or threaten the UK into having a second Referendum to overturn the first decision.

      That is flat out untrue. The EU has been incredibly conciliatory, but also consistent and firm in sticking to the rules that both the UK and EU agreed. The main issue for the UK is that the EU has presented a completely united, consistent front from day one, agreeing a position and sticking to it. They had the rules and principals laid out decades ago. Meanwhile the UK cabinet can't even agree on what it wants, and doesn't even appear to know what it wants.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Ironic by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I also note that nobody batted an eye when Barak Obama not only made very pro-Brexit comments, but also made it very clear that if Britain elected to vote to leave, then Britain would be put to "the back of the queue" when it came to negotiating a trade deal with the US.

      Actually his comments were published and commented on by groups representing both sides in the debate. People wanting to remain in the EU used his comments to suggest that the Leave campaigns were overly optimistic in their "We can trade with other countries" statements, and the Leave campaigners attacked Obama for trying to influence an internal UK decision.

      t the government of the day spent literally millions of pounds of Tax-Payers money to fund their part of the campaign, by physically posting their views to every single household in the country via a mail-dropped leaflet

      Yeah, I'm still pissed off about that. Although they did at least fuck up the timing of it, any initial benefiit would have worn off by the date of the referendum.

      If the UK caves then there is nothing to stop the EU from becoming a totalitarian state - which might sound a bit melodramatic

      It is melodramatic. The EU is becoming a totalitarian state anyway. The only question is how long it takes its populace to rise against it.

      Reversing the UK's decision to leave the EU will merely accelerate that event.

      And if the UK or other countries want to make material improvements, then there is nothing to stop them from putting more effort into stamping out voting fraud, is there? Don't see much on that topic...

      The UK does do a lot to minimise voter fraud already. There is still an opportunity to do more, but it's a challenging area. I do worry that some attempts to reduce fraud are being inhibited by the fear of being accused of racism, much as the police in Rotherham failed to protect vulnerable children for the same reason.

    3. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is flat out untrue.

      No, it is true. We live in the age of social justice, where the accuser gets to decided whether the accused is guilty or not

      If the accuser *FEELS* you have been a bully, offensive, a harasser, did something sexually inappropriate, etc... then they can freely accuse you and say all sorts of things about you (and your defenders), evidence or not. Society is told to listen and believe the accuser, and that's what both the media and masses do. Depending on your political view, people just assume the verdict before any investigation or evidence.

      So if people in UK feel that the EU has been bullies, then the EU are bullies, and the rest of us are supposed to listen and believe them.

      You individually might live in the UK and you might not share that opinion, but... you're the minority. The Brexit vote is evidence of that.

  64. ae911truth dot org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israeli meddling is OK

  65. Re:Trump won, get over it. by rotovator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whatever The media and press doesn't like from people is blamed on russians to try to revert it. Their candidate was Hillary. She lost.. It's Russians influence (even they assured the elections could not be hacked and they had to accept the results they expected ).

    Now, People in Britain sees the evil that the EU is (yes I'm a part of EU and hate EU government), and they vote to exit... against the Press&media will.... again "let's blame the russians"

  66. Just pointing this out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meddling in other countries' politics is in the lyrics to UK's national fucking anthem.

    1. Re:Just pointing this out: by ytene · · Score: 1

      This statement *really* surprised me. Curious, I went to look:-

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

      I can't see it for looking. Care to point it out?

      Thanks

    2. Re:Just pointing this out: by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could look in the right place? I suspect he refers to the second verse:
      https://play.google.com/music/...

      Ah, sorry, no. This one:
      http://www.lyricsfreak.com/u/u...

    3. Re:Just pointing this out: by ytene · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, but please let's be fair. The lyrics I link to, above, are those of the original writer.

      I'm not denigrating on the alternatives you offer, but it's hardly the same, is it? If the original post had been "Just pointing out that there are unofficial versions of the UK's National Anthem which involve meddling with other countries..." then we could probably agree that as a possibility for just about *any* nation...

    4. Re:Just pointing this out: by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, OK, but please let's be fair. The lyrics I link to, above, are those of the original writer.

      The lyrics you link to aren't even the correct fucking song, you nincompoop.

  67. What if... by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    What if Putin tries to influence the Brexit's outcome with media reports about possible influence over Brexit's outcome by Putin?

  68. Re: Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from you, you mean?

  69. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The only effective response is to draw attention to it. If people get notifications from Facebook saying "this post you liked and re-posted to all your friends was actually Russian propaganda" it might alter their behaviour and views on the subject. It might make them think twice next time.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  70. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    The Russian propaganda is "Your politicians don't listen to you and your democracy is a farce." That line is a lot harder to sell if you are politicians DO listen to you, and your democracy ISN'T a farce.

    For example, had the Democratic nominee been Bernie Sanders, the emails showing the corruption of the DNC would HELP him, not hurt him, because it would paint him as an underdog fighting against corruption. THAT would be an effective countermeasure.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  71. May cries as a putin puppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Theresa May has said Russia's attempts to "sow discord" in the West could not go unchallenged

    Yeah, whatabout being not idiot? May who was driving brexit should take the responsibility instead of crying how Putin was behind it (even he is).

    1. Re: May cries as a putin puppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "May who was driving brexit should take the responsibility"

      May was not driving brexit. whatabout being not idiot?

  72. That damn "meddling" again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With NO explanation of what, exactly, constitutes "meddling".
    Oh, they mean trying to INFLUENCE voters to vote one way or the other - rather like the entire Jewish controlled media has been doing for the past fifty years! How 'democratic'. And anybody who speaks out against this Jewish power will be attacked by the same Jewish controlled media until they are sacked from their jobs, fined, or even put in prison!

    The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.

  73. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    I don't think the Russians have goals that specific in mind. They just create division and anger, and let it do whatever damage it ends up doing.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  74. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, AmiMojo is harassing another poster.

    And then he wonders why he gets down modded with troll and flamebait mods

  75. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    On the other hand it's easy to know what Mashiki is thinking. It's the usual straw man argument, paining the "left" as being paranoid and calling everyone a Russian/Nazi. Ignore the evidence, decry the investigation before it even starts, deflect defect deflect.

    When you attack the person, you're proving your intellectual cowardice. There's no strawman on that either, or did you skip the "punch a nazi" "nazi's are everywhere" etc., media hysteria that went on for several months....and has died off. Why don't you prove that the russians are everywhere and lurking under your bed, along with the nazis? The media sure hasn't, investigators haven't. Even this article and twitters "post" haven't shown any actual evidence of this, the only thing they've done is "claim" and you know, claim that accounts made nearly a year after the period in question were also "russian" accounts.

    Come on buddy, it's time for the what-about post.

    How's your police state in the UK coming along? You guys sure have done a bang-up job on that one.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  76. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Show me proof that shitposting on the internet actually DID anything. It didn't.

    It got the uneducateds to believe electing someone from liberal New York City would be the worst thing to happen to this country.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  77. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Now, People in Britain sees the evil that the EU is (yes I'm a part of EU and hate EU government), and they vote to exit... against the Press&media will.... again "let's blame the russians"

    What bothers me more, is this isn't even limited to the US, the UK or the EU. Media in Canada, and other english speaking countries have been pulling the same garbage, if there isn't another journolist type group setting up narratives I'll eat my keyboard. It wouldn't surprise me if media all over the place are pulling the same garbage, it's entertaining though when you spot the shills pushing it though. They usually have a lapse in thinking, and post "soviet" instead of "russian" which kinda points out how old the person who wrote the script usually is.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  78. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    The point still stands. It's easier to sow division and anger when people have legitimate reasons to be angry. The best resistance against foreign propaganda is a responsible government that serves its people's interests.

    Also, if the Dems are to be believed, Putin personally ordered this operation, and Russia groomed Trump over a long period.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  79. great, look at Brazil by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

    Hey Teresa, what about US/British intelligence meddling in Brazillian elections? And nearly all democratic nations relevant to the US in the last 50 years? Does it ring a bell?

  80. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Hay, I didn't notice that you worked an accusation of racism into the post title. Well done, exemplary.

    So yeah, I'm still punching Nazis and all that, but I've given up on the UK. It's fucked. I went to China and noticed that the mass surveillance is pretty much the same. So anyway, I'm leaving, going somewhere that suits my leftist progressive socio-commie philosophy better. Also they won't let my wife immigrate, but it's mostly about the other stuff.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  81. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Hay, I didn't notice that you worked an accusation of racism into the post title. Well done, exemplary.

    There's that usual part where you make no sense...and...

    So yeah, I'm still punching Nazis and all that...

    Glad you've come out and labeled yourself an authoritarian that believes in political violence in order to further your ends. Not only that, but you become a walking contradiction. The UK is your progressive socio-commie philosophy wrapped up in a happy little blanket, it's everything you want. Protected class, particular groups of people getting special privileges based on race, rampant identity politics, jew hatred, oversight and prosecution of thought crimes by government and police. Why would you want to leave the paradise you've already created?

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  82. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    If you think that's bad, try to figure out the Right. Nazis are good decent folks and Russians fund the NRA.

    So let's see if this makes sense: Nazi's are good, and russians fund the NRA. But Trump is a nazi, and so are his supporters? His supporters are also russians according to the various flapping heads in the leftist media...

    So I guess that means Trump and his supporters are actually the good guys?

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  83. Russian Meddling != disinformation by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    In some cases they do spread disinformation. However many of the posts I've seen in the news recently describing russian "meddling" in the US election are just cases of the Russians apparently promoting certain facts that they like. Just because the Russians promote those facts does not make them untrue.

  84. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the Russian dude. Yeah, I've been watching you AHuxley.

  85. Are the over 55's the biggest users of facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well according to the leftists, the vote was driven by the over 55s.
    I thought over 55s were supposed to be useless at using technology?

  86. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Glad you've come out and labeled yourself an authoritarian that believes in political violence in order to further your ends.

    Yes, I definitely wasn't joking. Nothing gets past you.

    The UK is your progressive socio-commie philosophy wrapped up in a happy little blanket, it's everything you want.

    That's why I'm leaving, I have everything I want and am completely happy with the UK, it fits my personal beliefs perfectly. That makes complete sense. Your assumptions are, as always, spot on.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  87. Re:So, seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The democrats aren't unAmerican traitors. That's antifa and the assorted other minions working almost directly for putin that are traitors.

  88. Re: Russia Spent £0.73 During Brexit Campaig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Telegraph piece and many others state why the 0.73 figure is misleading. I know you know this but others, more gullible, might fall for your tricks.

    [MP] Mr Collins said Facebook had not been thorough enough. He said it had only identified adverts from pages that had already been discovered in the US investigation, and that studies showing thousands of Twitter bots had attempted to disrupt the vote were strong evidence that there was Russian meddling.

    "It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate's investigation," he said.

  89. Can you even read, you ignorant fuck? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    From the link posted by the troll above:

    Facebook has said less than £1 was spent on Russian adverts designed to disrupt the Brexit vote, downplaying claims that meddling from the Kremlin helped swing last yearâ(TM)s referendum.

    The US internet giant responded to an investigation from the Electoral Commission by saying the Internet Research Agency, a shadowy organisation with links to the Russian government, spent just $0.97 (73p) in Britain during the two months of the EU referendum campaign.

    However, its claims were instantly disputed by a senior MP.

    Damian Collins, the chair of the digital, culture, media and sport (DCMS) committee, accused Facebook of failing to probe the true extent of Russian meddling.

    And surprise-surprise... They are going back to see if they've maybe, perhaps, possibly, missed some - once they are called out about it.

    Just like how Facebook's could not have influenced the outcome of the election in November 2016.
    But by April of 2017 "disinformation campaign during the election" WAS there but it was "statistically very small".
    Then in September it turns out it they sold $150.000 worth of ads to Russians for some "3000 ads" connected to some 470 accounts, aimed at promoting discord on issues such as "gun rights, immigration, LGBT rights and race".
    Or was that "80,000 pieces of content [which] may have been viewed by a total of 126 million people", as was revealed by late October 2017.

    How those numbers keep growing... it's as almost as if Zuckerberg and Co. are lying through their teeth to cover their asses - then rolling over when pressed about it.

    Meanwhile, in the land of Brexit...

    Researchers at the University of Edinburgh identified 419 accounts operating from the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) attempting to influence UK politics out of 2,752 accounts suspended by Twitter in the US.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  90. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Yes, I definitely wasn't joking. Nothing gets past you.

    Your past post history says you aren't joking. Or did you forget all those times when you defended "punching nazis" in your own comments?

    That's why I'm leaving, I have everything I want and am completely happy with the UK, it fits my personal beliefs perfectly. That makes complete sense. Your assumptions are, as always, spot on.

    That's not an assumption, it's observable based on your comments, your stances, your views. You've gotten a happy little taste of the paradise that you want, and suddenly you don't like it. But you're more then happy to travel to another country and spread the same views that got you there in the first place.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  91. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point still stands. It's easier to sow division and anger when people have legitimate reasons to be angry. The best resistance against foreign propaganda is a responsible government that serves its people's interests.

    Actually, evidence indicates it's easier to sow division and anger when people don't have legitimate reasons to be angry. There's nothing you can do to satisfy the perpetual resentment and grousing that beguiles some people who just want to be upset. And they're also the most prone to influence by propaganda that gives them a convenient target to scapegoat, such as a responsible government that doesn't placate and mollify them with false promises and insincere blandishments.

    Also, if the Dems are to be believed, Putin personally ordered this operation, and Russia groomed Trump over a long period.

    If that was the case, then Putin should get a refund. Floyd really did a messed-up number with that grooming. But seriously, if Trump is to be believed, Obama somehow engaged in a widespread Machiavellian conspiracy that dated from his birth, that he was somehow raised to hate and despise America and destroy it, but only Trump could save us by waving his magic wand that suddenly made the economy (which had been growing for years, despite Trump's proclamations of disaster), blossom and grow. I will grant that shit is fertilizer, and Trump spreads copious amounts, but things don't work like that.

    Sorry, but the real problem with Trump is not whether or not Russia influenced him, but the fact that he'd let them do it without even caring. He's been loud, obnoxious, and thoughtless for decades. He's dumb enough to blunder into almost anything.

  92. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were investigations and news reports about Russia interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and using propaganda techniques like fake news prior to both the US elections and the Brexit vote taking place. You probably forgot about due to your ridiculously short millenial attention span.

  93. So you ARE a racist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got it. Just wanted to make sure we all understand that the left is super racist, when it fits their agenda.

  94. Classic Saul Alinsky slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Accuse others of doing the very thing you're doing.

  95. Re:Are the over 55's the biggest users of facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought over 55s were supposed to be useless at using technology?

    Facebook is pretty much the "over 55s network"

  96. Here's a hint: there Was and Is by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The problem is they're trying to pretend it's not as bad as it is.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  97. Confirmation bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they are trying to confirm their Russian meddling conspiracy theories.

  98. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Your past post history says you aren't joking.

    Well, my granddad was a Nazi-puncher back during the great SJW invasion of Europe in 1944, so maybe I'm biased.

    That's not an assumption, it's observable based on your comments, your stances, your views. You've gotten a happy little taste of the paradise that you want, and suddenly you don't like it.

    So all this protesting about not wanting any of that stuff is actually just cover for me really wanting it, except that actually it turns out I don't want it... This is getting more confusing than Pizzagate.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  99. Russians don't need nanobots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why use nanobots? All they needed to do was place ads and fake users on social media to get the shills riled up against one another by taking sides. That is all they needed to do to further divide and conquer. The Russians aren't to blame, nor are the Democrats, the Republicans or the media. In fact none of the bogeymen are really to blame even though they had a hand in doing so. In fact it is those that let themselves buy into their brand of propaganda just because they just so happen to agree with it while dismissing anything else as "propaganda" just because it isn't their own brand of propaganda. If the sheeple would just start using critical thinking skills none of this will happen again. Then again, using critical thinking skills is frowned upon by the world.

  100. So any decision made by the common voter by BigChigger · · Score: 1

    that is disliked by the liberal elites, can just be blamed on Russia as a mechanism to override that decision back to the path the elites prefer. Got it.

  101. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, my granddad was a Nazi-puncher back during the great SJW invasion of Europe in 1944, so maybe I'm biased.

    You hate your granddad that much? You do what you're doing is basically the opposite of he fought for, right?

    So all this protesting about not wanting any of that stuff is actually just cover for me really wanting it

    Why wouldn't it be? We insist right wingers don't really mean what they say when they speak. It's all code for racism or sexism or supporting Nazis or hating poor people, etc.

    Why would we treat you any differently?

  102. Re: Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the great SJW invasion of Europe in 1944"

    Must use that.

    D-Day: Revenge Of The Snowflakes

  103. Rednecks are EVERYWHERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see you use the EXACT same arguments that we invented here in America and just inserted your country's name. Stay classy, UK redneck.

    1. Re: Rednecks are EVERYWHERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay slimy, racist.

  104. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Well, my granddad was a Nazi-puncher back during the great SJW invasion of Europe in 1944, so maybe I'm biased.

    So despite your denial that you advocate for political violence to enact political change, you're now once again in agreement that you're okay with using violence for political purposes.

    So all this protesting about not wanting any of that stuff is actually just cover for me really wanting it, except that actually it turns out I don't want it... This is getting more confusing than Pizzagate.

    You mean this part? " So anyway, I'm leaving, going somewhere that suits my leftist progressive socio-commie philosophy better." Which you already have...and want to flee to another country where you can live exactly under the same system you already have.

    Pizzagate on the otherhand is simple, kind of like how your government covered up the mass rapes of young girls, and of Jimmy Savile. The only difference between the two is that "pizzagate" is in the "but there's a whole pile of circumstantial stuff" just like "there was a whole pile of circumstantial stuff, with Savile 40+ yeas ago and the mass-rapes and child prostitution 10+ years ago."

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  105. Re: Trump won, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having the best interests of American workers at heart?

  106. Re: Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Good morning, Comrade Wang! How's the weather in Shanghai today?

  107. Re: Trump won, get over it. by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Nah. ALL expressions of popular discontent with authoritarian financialism are the work of Soviet agents. Don't you know?

  108. Re: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most unlikely. My guess is AHuxley is a former (or current?) USIC officer, who many years ago was a Chinese IC officer who defected to America. Buuuuuut, that's 100% a guess.

  109. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    So despite your denial that you advocate for political violence to enact political change, you're now once again in agreement that you're okay with using violence for political purposes.

    To be fair, the "political purpose" of the great SJW invasion was to stop bombs falling on us. Also, I seem to recall that American SJWs joined in. Are you okay with that?

    Which you already have...and want to flee to another country where you can live exactly under the same system you already have.

    No, no, I want to go to a different system, not the same one. One with less surveillance, more freedom. For example I think there is possibility I might need euthanasia services in future, and the UK doesn't allow them.

    Oh, and not getting bricks through my windows, sent by xenophobes and racists. I know they are only trying to help me by gifting free replacement bricks for my old house, but it's kind of annoying.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  110. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the "political purpose" of the great SJW invasion was to stop bombs falling on us. Also, I seem to recall that American SJWs joined in. Are you okay with that?

    Maybe you should ask yourself why your country helped draft a plan that created the situation in the first place?

    No, no, I want to go to a different system, not the same one. One with less surveillance, more freedom. For example I think there is possibility I might need euthanasia services in future, and the UK doesn't allow them.

    That doesn't make sense, since you regularly post that peoples rights should be curtailed because it hurts your feelings. Most countries don't allow suicide like that, and for good reason. You can see the slippery slope in several EU countries where that already happened.

    Oh, and not getting bricks through my windows, sent by xenophobes and racists. I know they are only trying to help me by gifting free replacement bricks for my old house, but it's kind of annoying.

    Maybe you should be asking the question why that happened in the first place, it wasn't based on fault of your own. But rather due to the fault of other people who are similar to you, and government policies that looked the other way.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  111. Re:Trump won, get over it. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    You probably forgot about due to your ridiculously short millenial attention span.

    Note that UID? I was born before millennials were even a twinkle in their parents eye.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  112. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should ask yourself why your country helped draft a plan that created the situation in the first place?

    Because it was run by imperialist asshats. Not a very nuanced analysis, I know, but basically correct.

    That doesn't make sense, since you regularly post that peoples rights should be curtailed because it hurts your feelings.

    Er, no, you are mistaken. Hurt feelings alone are never enough to curtail rights.

    Most countries don't allow suicide like that, and for good reason. You can see the slippery slope in several EU countries where that already happened.

    Not really, it seems to be providing great relief to many people and all the fears about people being encouraged to kill themselves have not been realized.

    Maybe you should be asking the question why that happened in the first place, it wasn't based on fault of your own. But rather due to the fault of other people who are similar to you, and government policies that looked the other way.

    Not sure what you mean by that. They threw bricks at my house because they thought I was an Arab... I'm not, I'm half white British and half Asian, but you know how dumb these racists usually are. I really don't see the similarity.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  113. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure what you mean by that. They threw bricks at my house because they thought I was an Arab

    Nah, they probably just thought you were a Nazi, and like you, think violence against a Nazi is ok.

    Unless you listen to right wing fake news, you would know that most people are not racists and are against fascism, and that punching Nazis is the cool thing to do now. Whenever right-wing violence does break out, the real news media and all these celebrities will come out and say that the racism and bigotry is not "us" (US, UK, whenever) and what "we" stand for, that it's not the popular or majority opinion (results like Brexit are surely because of deception and Russian influence, people were just fooled to vote leave)

    So when you receive violence, it is much more likely it's a case of Nazi-punchers looking to punch Nazis but got the wrong guy, instead of racism. Seeing as people can be deceived to vote leave, it's not surprising that they might be deceived to think you're a Nazi even if you aren't one.

    ... I'm not, I'm half white British and half Asian,

    Well, your skin color or heritage has nothing to do with you being a Nazi. This includes the fact your grandpa was a Nazi-puncher.

    but you know how dumb these racists usually are.

    That is a very stupid statement. Racists aren't any more dumber than other groups of people. Perfectly smart people can be racists too (Henry Ford for example, had some rather antisemitic writings). Ditto them being racists or sexists (see: recent outings of people in Hollywood turning out to be creeps), and of course fascists.

    If Nazis were dumb, they wouldn't have been such a threat to the world that took the combined effort of the free world AND Stalin to defeat.

    I really don't see the similarity.

    Then Occram's Razor would suggest they didn't come after you because of your race. So again, I say they probably just thought you were a Nazi.

  114. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Because it was run by imperialist asshats. Not a very nuanced analysis, I know, but basically correct.

    So you're saying that the current state of the problems in the UK is because it was run by "imperialist asshats?" In the last 15 years...

    Er, no, you are mistaken. Hurt feelings alone are never enough to curtail rights.

    You mean where you've defended curtailing peoples rights for hurt feelings didn't happen? Have you changed your belief now that you're experiencing the heavy hand of the state?

    Not sure what you mean by that. They threw bricks at my house because they thought I was an Arab... I'm not, I'm half white British and half Asian, but you know how dumb these racists usually are. I really don't see the similarity.

    Most people can tell the difference between an arab and a not-arab. More likely you managed to piss someone off to the point where they stalked you and you got a brick through your window for your trouble. If your online personality is anything to go by, you'd project an in-general unlikable meat space personality. Then again, you could always try the "assimilate" route. My background is White-Japanese, and I don't identify as "Canadian and half-asian or "white-asian" I identify as Canadian, unfortunately the progressive left sees nothing but skin colour.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  115. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that the current state of the problems in the UK is because it was run by "imperialist asshats?" In the last 15 years...

    No

    You mean where you've defended curtailing peoples rights for hurt feelings didn't happen?

    Yes

    More likely you managed to piss someone off to the point where they stalked you and you got a brick through your window for your trouble.

    Hard to imagine how. We never spoke, never interacted (beyond the free bricks he gifted me). I didn't even know his name until I saw the court documents. I think he had heard my name because his son was at school with my younger brother long ago, and thought it was Arabic or something. And then the EDL and Brexit happened and his generosity increased.

    unfortunately the progressive left sees nothing but skin colour.

    Okay, what does that have to do with me again? Are you saying I only see skin colour because this other guy thinks I'm an Arab, even though I'm white...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  116. Re:Slashdot editors: the new anti-Russian racists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to imagine how.

    Nah, not hard at all. It's easy to imagine that they were doing this to you because they thought you were are Nazi

    We never spoke, never interacted (beyond the free bricks he gifted me)

    Most Nazi-punchers didn't speak or interacted with the Nazis they punched either... up to the point of punching, of course.

    I think he had heard my name because his son was at school with my younger brother long ago, and thought it was Arabic or something.

    That's a very stupid assumption. White, Japanese, and Arabic names sound nothing alike.

    So again, it's more likely he just figured you were a Nazi, and acted accordingly.

    Okay, what does that have to do with me again?

    Everything. The left loves to judge others by their associations (declared or implied), so it's only appropriate they are treated the same way.

    Just like how if one associates with Trump, MRAs, GamerGate, etc will be judged by the worst individuals and stereotypes of those groups, you yourself will be judged by the groups you declared or implied to be associated with.