Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Users Cry 'Censorship' After Being Told Which Russian Troll Pages They Liked (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: As the FBI's investigation into Russian election interference reaches a fever pitch, Facebook rolled out a new News Feed alert Monday night. The bulletin told users who followed pages created by Russian trolls that those pages have been removed. And some of the affected users did not like this. A brief search revealed that numerous people believe that this is an act of censorship by Facebook. Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what's "true, fake, or otherwise," a challenge that's bound to be a slippery slope in this era of algorithm-based confirmation bias. Others took on a more conspiratorial tone, claiming that Facebook failed to reveal which pages were removed (despite the alert containing a link listing the pages in question). Facebook first released the information in December, creating a help page that showed users if they liked or followed pages and accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency, Russia's notorious troll farm, but today's alert seems to have inspired newfound alarm. The fact that Facebook explicitly stated which pages were deleted seems to have done little to reduce the anger over the allegedly clandestine silencing.
It'd be sad if it wasn't so predictable.
from the article:
> Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what’s “true, fake, or otherwise,”
yes, your feelings affect the facts
except they don't
This is what a post-truth world looks like. The truth is whatever you prefer it to be, and many people seem to prefer not to think of themselves as having been manipulated by Russian trolls. Or maybe they are just so far down the rabbit hole they can't climb back up yet.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Republicans whine and cry when you point out that Moscow Donald has been caught red handed committing treason, and that the republican party is committing obstruction of justice to cover for Russia's attack on America.
When people say "I want the truth," what they really mean is "I want evidence that justifies my forgone conclusions."
They want the beliefs they already have to turn out to be true. So they will like anything that reinforces it.
They might reject this and say they want to learn what the real truth is. But the moment you start giving them evidence that they don't like, they pull out every irrational trick in the book to reject it. And they insist that they aren't doing this.
It really is quite amazing how good people are at this.
(of course, there are SOME people who have an honest interest in truth and the will to overcome their biases in the pursuit of it, but they are so rare as to be statistically insignificant)
between fake news trolls and Fox News? They run the same angles for the same purposes - propaganda. Party over country, party over information, party over truth.
Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what's "true, fake, or otherwise," a challenge that's bound to be a slippery slope in this era of algorithm-based confirmation bias.
One summer in college, I was fortunate enough to take a Chemistry course taught by Bassam Shakhashiri.
One of the things he would do is ask, "How many people think it's A?" and a bunch of people would raise their hands.
Then he would ask, "How many people think it's B?" and a bunch of other people would raise their hands.
He would then say, "Science is not a democracy. The answer is ____."
Truth is not a democracy either.
Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide what's "true, fake, or otherwise,"
Sounds like agents of foreign power talking. Lets register them as such.
It'd be sad if it wasn't so predictable.
Incorrect. It is still sad.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
censorship, no matter what the reason is always bad. Facebook is being exposed by this - people will realise its a hoax, and im sure that a lot of people will start to realise they have the wrong impression of what facebook is, and does.
ps. where is the next social media platform... I want it bad.
What about the pages created by Russian Trolls that were factual, accurate, and informative?
Didn't read article, too lazy, getting fatigued with all this Russian stuff. Back in the days when Soviet Russia put first satellite in space, first man in space, best educated scientists and engineers, top athletes, outstanding dancers (ballet and ballroom), first this, first that (but not really, they were great at propaganda). It prompted many in US to "man up and do something about it" with increased budgets, resources, and drive to close "the gap" (everything from missiles to mineshafts). Nowadays we all spend time bitching on the forums, when top men in govt work on resolving this Russian stuff, their careers are cut short (i.e. director and deputy director of FBI).
People don't like to be shown for fools, and these messages are Facebook telling them they've been taken. Furthermore, they're already invested in whatever political side was favored by the Russian posts they liked, so it's easy to discount this as targeting their personal beliefs. It's like some kind of Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe a sunk cost fallacy situation. People seem more likely to double down on their position even when it's made clear that they were wrong.
Like it or not, there are objective facts.
The Donald didn't have the biggest inauguration crowd ever, there are no 'alternative facts'.
How people can say they want to be able to choose 'truthiness' as if it is equally valid with what is true.
Anyone who uses Facebook for news deserves everything they get. Including the president they got saddled with. But don't worry folks, only 1085 days 2 hours to go!
TLDR
No Facebook, No problem
come from an outfit called "The Internet Research Agency", which you can read about on Wikipedia.
TL;DR: The Internet Research Agency is a St. Petersburg based company which has among its customers the government of Russia. The company specializes in astroturfing -- not just in the US but in Russia as well. In Eastern Europe they're focused on Ukraine but in the US they post on both sides of issues (e.g. posting as socially conservative groups or as radical LGBT groups) in order to stir up division, e.g. posing as American Muslims or gays or as American evangelical Christians.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's the problem with the "Like" button. Just because those troll pages were lies, doesn't mean that some people stopped "liking" them. It also doesn't mean that the users "Agree" with them. "Like" is just too broad a term.
LOL. Every one of your "facts" is a previously debunked conspiracy theory. You are exactly the type of Facebook user this article is talking about.
So much this.
When you get caught, act like the other guy is the real criminal. I'll take actual text messages from the FBI demonstrating malfeasance toward Republicans over smoke-and-mirrors about Russia any day.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/25/missing-text-messages-between-two-fbi-employees-have-been-located-according-to-department-justice-official.html
Was the ability to read, publish, self publish, review publications, talk about books and news.
Now social media wants to stop all that discussion in the USA.
Social media workers will allow a short list of approved news, allow a list of approved links, allow comments, allow accounts.
Thats freedom of speech and freedom after speech. Let people all over the USA talk about any news, reports, books, movies they want.
Let them talk about a great political leader who gave a great speech in their state.
Mention the part politics that was negative about their state.
Talk about a movie in any way a reviewer wants.
To have the freedom to read that movie review, link it, talk about it, quote the review, to consider going to that movie.
Not to have social media ban the review, ban the reviewer and only support very positive reviews of all movies.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Is there any way to filter tags to get rid of this stuff?
An old co-worker had a habit of posting obviously fake right wing news articles, so-and-so arrested for treason, Obama caught admitting to X, etc.
When I saw it I would usually post a quick comment pointing out it was fake (often providing counter-evidence) and he'd reply "opps" and move on to most the next obvious piece of BS.
Eventually I prodded a bit too much during the health care bill and he unfriended me.
I still have no idea if he actually believed some of that fake news or if he simply didn't care.
I stole this Sig
Do you happen to own a mirror by chance?
Correct, you have aligned yourself with the traitors who conspired with Russia's attack on America, and are trying to carry water for known traitors by posting discredited obfuscations.
Much like Republicans are helping Moscow Donald commit treason by committing obstruction of Justice, you are also on the side of Russia / Trump with your discredited misinformation.
Not knowing, is one thing, once you know, you have the oppertunity to humbly admit you got dupped or just own that you prefer Russia.
I do. It tells me I'm am ugly bastard so I know it's not lying to me. That's more than I can say about the previous poster.
I own a stack of newspapers that detail who Trump has been caught red handed committing treason, and it's clear that the whole republican party is committing obstruction of justice to cover up Russia's attack on America.
Fox news is not a reliable source.
And still predictable.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is why the utopia of a democratized internet of citizen reporters and transparency is a false hope. As much as you'd like to believe in such a future, we need *authorities* and institutions to do the work (yes, hard work) to determine what is truth and have some objective standards.
Uninformed crowds voting for what they believe sounds correct or newsworthy (or worse, what's just trendy or fun, no intellectual effort required) leads to very damaging scams and fake news flying around like a virus on an unvaccinated population.
Smart governments know that information is not just something that can be left to figure itself out at the whim of the crowd.
their should probably rename slashdot to beauHD's news about facebook and apple... has this guy any idea about anything else than fucking corporations?
What made the USA great was the ability to read, publish, self publish, review publications, talk about books and news. Now social media wants to stop all that discussion in the USA.
I guess since we can't do it on facebook, that means it's prohibited everywhere! Oh wait, no, nobody is stopping you from doing any of those things! It's almost like there are some Terms of Service that you have to abide by for certain platform! If there were some way people could put content on the internet without such things. Too bad nobody will ever figure out how to make a website or connect a server to the internet. Clearly facebook was the last site that ever figured that one out!
Your argument holds less water than aerogel.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There can't be any debate about this. FB, as a private company, can do whatever they like as far as censoring content. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. Is it really that hard to find a slanted news source on the Internet?
Were the groups Russian trolls? No idea. I don't consider FB a serious source of news. If I was forming my opinions based on what I read on FB, I would consider myself a low information voter. To rely on single source is foolish.
Like those pages because they confirm their hatred for Democrats.
Facebook Users Cry 'Censorship' After Being Told Which Numbers Are Less Than Fifteen
As mathematicians investigations into the properties of all real numbers, Facebook rolled out a new News Feed alert Monday night. The bulletin told users who used numbers greater than or equal to fifteen that they would no longer return true compared to fiften with a less than operator. A brief search revealed that numerous people believe that this is an act of censorship by Facebook. Some users argued that they should be allowed to decide which numbers were "bigger, smaller, or otherwise"...
Seriously, facts are facts. The only thing to be challenged are sources, and, good, do real research, learn. (Strangely, the less a person knows, the more confident they seem to be that are correct.) Facebook can do what they want, really. It's their product. Users use it by the permission of Facebook. Users have no direct say. Don't like it? Don't use it.
You forgot pizzagate. I can't fill my bingo card without pizzagate.
Like it or not, there are objective facts.
The Donald didn't have the biggest inauguration crowd ever, there are no 'alternative facts'.
How people can say they want to be able to choose 'truthiness' as if it is equally valid with what is true.
Be careful because there is such a thing as not having ALL the facts. Especially in political theater, the omission of objective facts and cherry picking the disclosed facts to support one's desired narrative is an art form. Misleading use of facts is common. Being objectively true isn't enough. You need "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth" to get the full picture.
BTW... Trump is often just boasting to watch folks scurry around making weird noises. I think he enjoys watching folks go off the deep end about things that don't matter such as your inauguration crowd size thing. He made a stupid boast, he does that from time to time. Everybody knew he was that kind of guy when he got elected and he's getting better about this kind of thing. I suggest you let this specific thing go and go after him on things that actually matter..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The russian witch.
So we can burn it.
The only real solution is to have voter ID.
That'll keep the Russians out of the voting booths.
Seriously, don't know anyone who changed their vote because of their Facebook ads.
You have to be a complete moron, if you get any of your news, from ONE source. Shoot, sometimes I find LESS bias, by reading from news sources OUTSIDE of the USA, than I do INSIDE the USA. Everything is so politicized, it's hard to know what is real, what is fake, what is "edited" to sway people on either of the two political groups in the USA. I'm conservative (NOT to be confused with the so called Republican party) but, I read several sites that are considered left leaning. Why? Because I want to know the thinking process of "the other side" so to speak. To try and figure out WHY they have such views. Believe it or not, a RATIONAL person, will, on occasion, agree with someone on the left, not because of politics, but because they are correct in their view.
The DNC and the Clintons were in deep with the Russians (the fake dossier paid for by HRC PAC and the DNC, from the Russians, the uranium One deal, the 500 thousand Bill Clinton got after the deal went through when HRC was Sec. of State)
That's "in deep" by your reckoning? What about in 2008 when Trump sold a Palm Beach mansion to Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, $50 million more than Trump paid for it a few years earlier? Couldn't be that Trump was helping launder money for the Russians, right? No, the house must have doubled in value in a few years, right? Never mind that it was the highest price paid for a Palm Beach house (by $13 million), that's just what the market could bear, right? Maybe the guy just really liked the property, even though he specifically said he didn't plan to live in the house or the US in general. No, he said it was an investment property, and if I know anything about real estate investments, I know that you should pay double what it's worth, and more than any other property in the area. I'm pretty sure that's how investment works. And this is a continuing pattern of Trump selling condos and other high-value real estate, a notorious target for money laundering, to a long list of shell companies. This is following Russia identifying Trump as exactly the kind of person they might want to groom as an oblivious foreign agent because of his easily manipulated personality, only to drop the effort after a decade or two because he's too unpredictable. Instead you want to try to drag up a payment made to Bill Clinton for $500k, and use that as evidence that they are "in deep" with the Russians. Where's the paper trail on that payment to Bill, by the way, which connects it to Russia?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Something got fucked up in your post. I think you meant to link to "actual text messages from the FBI demonstrating malfeasance towards Republicans", but instead of you linked to some crap on Fox News.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This is why the utopia of a democratized internet of citizen reporters and transparency is a false hope. As much as you'd like to believe in such a future, we need *authorities* and institutions to do the work (yes, hard work) to determine what is truth and have some objective standards.
The problem is that there is no penalty for producing information that is outright fabrication, no punishment for acting against the interests of the greater good of an information based society. You can lie and fabricate for your own selfish ends as much as you like, and people don't realize that.
In a way, the Internet is like an early capitalist economy, where any actor can engage in predatory monopolistic behavior without any fear or repercussions. In a truly free market, you should act as destructively as possible towards ecenomic rivals before they catch on and do the same to you. In an open Internet, why not just produce lies and propaganda to support your POV or political ends? If you don't do it, your rivals will.
An open and free Internet is an achievable goal. It just requires a few rules that can be enforced fairly for all parties involved. Eventually there will be some sort of Internet laws created that are agreed on by a number of countries, and all the rest of the world will be forced to play by them or kicked off the Internet. It will be something like:
1) No attacking underlying infrastructure
2) No censoring other parties
3) No spreading false or misleading information.
It won't likely be soon though, so expect more bullshit like this until it happens...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I didn't think that those living in other countries were guaranteed free speech. The first amendment is about congress not passing laws that impact free speech. Laws in one country do not generally apply in others.
But he didn't say it wasn't predictable. ;)
If you are getting your news filtered by Mark Zuckerberg and accomplices then you are getting it from one troll or another. Which one is a minor point.
No, I did.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The Russian trolls and alt-right Nazis that benefitted from the pages are going to react and launch a campaign against it. Who in their right mind would think otherwise? Facebook needs to stick to it's guns and let them find new ways to exploit it's capabilities.
Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world
And the seven seas,
Everybody's looking for something.
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused.
Russia Protests with Fake American Facebook Users Comments, film at 11
Collectively, we are that stupid.
So what we need is a Committee of Experts, chosen by the government or, more likely, the CEO of some profit oriented company, to decide what is and is not fake news, and what is and is not suitable for us idiots to read.
What could possibly go wrong?
The people that read fake news vote Republican anyway. Would not matter what happens. So the fake news is actually irrelevant to the left.
What is far, far more alarming is the fact that the right, including Trump, has taken up the fake news mantra very effectively. They label any unsupportive news as fake and who is the left to disagree given that they have made such a fuss about fake news generally.
So the left needs to learn to shut up about this issue. It is irrelevant, except in the way that the right is abusing it.
When they rely on an organization like Snopes, which has no journalistic nor any investigative credentials, to decide whatâ(TM)s fake.
Private companies can't censor. By definition, censorship is a government activity. People who use the wrong words to complain aren't usually taken very seriously. If you want the elites to listen, you have to speak their language.
And then anything and anyone not in tune with the narrative. Lastly the Clintons...
And some of them are those trolls.
Was it close, or was the DNC rigging the national election? I think there is a 4 page memo coming out this week that shows drastic measures to rig the election. Trump just won by enough that their rigging wasn't enough.
My question, have all the DNC election wins been due to rigging? I'm thinking so. After all, none of them are the least bit concerned about rigging their primary against Sanders.
Everything about this is hilariously ironic. First we have claims about how the Trump supporters would invent conspiracy theories if he lost. Then we have literal McCarthy 2.0 over muh Russia. Now we have a Farcebook ministry of Truth. Just wow.
Now we musn't be aware of the truth of corruption eh?
No Accountability.
Stopped using it entirely about a year ago. Haven't missed any of this crap.
I'm sorry, but people are correct to claim censorship: according to the summary, pages have been removed, yes for spreading falsehoods and propaganda, but they're gone all the same. That is censorship on the part of Facebook.
Is that censorship justified? According to Facebook's TOS, sure, but it still strikes me as a worrisome strategy. Rather than remove the pages, I'd think it'd be more sensible to label them as known propaganda sources, and provide references that contradict detected falsehoods. Since the detection is supposedly done algorithmically, it should be relatively straightforward for Facebook to take that approach.
Instead of exposing fallacies to the light, Facebook instead opted for censorship, relying on rather opaque (to end users) processes. Facebook is essentially saying, "trust us, you shouldn't look at this stuff." Is it really any wonder that people are skeptical of Facebook's claims and motives? Even if Facebook is 100% correct to remove the pages that it has, it establishes a precedent for removal with little -- if any -- oversight... and the crowd here is cheering for that closed process.
This sort of process just begs for abuse, and as already shown, it leads others to suspect abuse -- even if entirely unwarranted -- leading such people to cling to conspiracies. I'd be surprised if the strategy ultimately has the effect people here seem to think it will have, but hey, this crowd already surprised me with their embrace of closed, censorious tactics of a mega-corporation. Anything to stick a thumb in the eye of "people who think that they can establish what's true based on faith and feelings," aka, "Republicans," though, right?
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
People hate being called idiots and thats exactly what Facebook just did:
"You are an idiot because you believed into fabricated accounts distributing fabricated stories."
Now smart people could just shut up and swallow their hurt pride. But we are obviously not talking about smart people...
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Thank you Facebook for being a fool spotlight.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
You tell 'em, Comrade Li Feng!
Dude, you fell for a pretty simple variation of "whataboutism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your opponent was successfully switching its topic every time he wanted, every time he ran out of arguments, every time his POV looked bleak. And you let him. You followed him.
Instead you should press your point. Never argue too many points at once but never give up a single point. Choose your points wisely. Something like "select your one or two most valid argument out of the thousands of possible arguments". Press them. Never let go of a good point.
You opponent tries to change topic? Ignore it. Bring back your Topic. Tell him you do not fall for his lousy Whataboutism. Bring back your topic. He tries to avoid it? Ask him why he tries to avoid it. You will drive your opponent either into submission ("I can see your point now"), resignation ("You are a meany, I will never ever talk to you") oder madness ("but the illuminate and the pink invisible CIA agents!!!"). And finally, have the last word, no matter what, make clear your hard facts won the day while his failures to deliver hard facts are obvious. Be a gentle dick.
Facts are a wonderful thing because the longer and deeper you discuss them the harder they get.
Lies on the other side are brittle. Discuss them for long and they crumble to dust.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
People simply don't understand one of the most basic properties of websites. They are not government controlled entities and have absolutely no rules regarding your free speech. They are free to censor, modify and repackage anything put on their site. Most of the legalese you blindly agree to signs away most of your rights to even content you create.
The most important property of a website to remember is: You are a guest in someone else's domain.
As a guest, you have no say, no rights, no recourse but to leave the site. You're free to create you own site to write all about your horrific experience with another site, but think again if you think you have any rights as a guest. The only right you have is to leave.
And these days, ugh, even that's a little questionable, some of these sites out there retain everything they know about you even if you tell them you're done and want to remove your account entirely.
> Could you explain how, exactly, a 100% solar/renewable
> approach would do more damage to the environment than the
> non-renewables that it could otherwise replace?
Production of photovoltaic cells relies on semiconductor technology which is inherently dirty. Per Square meter of semiconductors we are talking about THOUSANDS of tons of chemicals, horrible acids, polutted water, poisoned soil. Or BILLIONS of tons per total year production. In fact the TCO of photovoltaics is BY FAR the worst of all. Only good thing about it, by using expensive recycling technologies one can catch like 99% of the waste. Read and think: Expensive Recycling. Who is gonna do this?
Please seperate this from other renewable energies, Thermical solar power for example is pretty clean but only useful for heating, not for electricity.
Here is a small comparison: Lets say we would grind all nuclear power stations into small dust and put em into the ocean then the natural radiation of all oceans would rise three times. Most likely nothing wouild change. Lets put all waste from semiconductor production into the ocean and it would become a deadly acid cocktail where one little sip would send you into hospital.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
The TCO (total cost of ownership) is already part of the whole argument. Trust me, photovoltaic energy IS dirty. There are better renewable energies.
Something else, storage of energy does not require chemical batteries. Some examples: Pumped-storage hydroelectricity, concrete lift storage (there is a concrete lift in germany weighting around five million tons, build underground and perfectly invisible), submerged bubble energy storage and many more. The required Resources and Technology is so simple it was already available to the ancient roman empire: Water and concrete. Lost of it.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."
--George Orwell, 1984
Curiously, Facebook, Inc. owns the domain Faceboot.com, and it redirects to Facebook.com.
Think what the rulers / SJWs claim is "wrong" actually is factually wrong and not just opinions and views they don't want to be heard and shared.
Just mark them as suspicious, don't outright remove them.
Table-ized A.I.
Doesn't mean they aren't after you. There is Radio Free Europe that has been broadcasting into Russia since Cold War. It would be naive to think that its programs have been unbiased. At the same time, Facebook has bazillions of advertisers and domestic political advertisers are trolls too. Maybe it's marginally better to have competition from foreign trolls. However much they lie, they will also expose whatever truthful information suits their needs. You can see Russian propoganda in action for yourself. No doubt biased, but isn't there still something useful to learn from a different perspective?
Think about the propaganda: "let people vote with their dollars" trying to convince you free markets are democratic and fair. Even if that worked (it doesn't) it's the same problem of letting the whims of the mob decide.
I mean, there are real reasons to be angry at Facebook available.
Inquiring minds wants to know. I'm not entirely sure that the origin defined the content, i.e. the stories might be true despite coming from Russia, especially if the content reported is being suppressed elsewhere in the world.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Mainly among people of certain age, with certain (lack of) knowledge/principles/clear ideas and self (mis)perception, blindly sticking to whatever is way easier than recognising their original mistake. For these people, consciously avoiding anything which might prove them wrong seems really easy, although they usually rely on some kind of external help like echo chambers of similar "views". The final scene of Memento is quite descriptive of these (surprisingly common) behaviours: they HAVE TO BELIEVE (not really, but they will do it anyway). Once you fully accept that this sub-reality exists and can't be changed, you stop caring about it.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
We almost need some kind of education program to identify legitimate sources of news. Using Google to search for "Fact Check title" often works, though care is required there as with anything else.
Which exactly what is happening in some other countries : France is having a few pilot program of teach media to kids (random example of a youtuber who's a teacher in real life and has published records of a classroom. Sorry it's in French. And sorry for the unfortunate implication if you translate the title in English, that wasn't intended in French).
The Herman Goering applies, and I fear it probably always will.
His assert about people getting used to (and eventually somewhat believing) a lie repeated enough might apply as well.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
hello
where is proofs?
This is hilarious! The "left" (although they could hardly be called left at the moment) are trying to outdo the birther loons with muh Russian conspiracy idiocy!
No surprise here. "I should be allowed to decide what's true" has been the central conservative conviction for decades, now.
This is literally hilarious! First we have idiot birthers, now we have idiot Muh Russia!!
If you want to avoid idiot bully presidents in future, try to avoid replicating the worst aspects of his fanbase.
how is this modded insightful? You made a claim, that is no no way correct, and didnt back that claim with any facts.
oh wait... i see what you did there..... russian troll, got it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm not on Facebook! Screw Facebook.
1.
"Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013."
2.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority
stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
One stock."
3.
"Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China."
I can give you more examples from otherwise acclaimed as reputable sources. If any of these you find literally incredible, please, share with us the foundations for discrediting them.
One of those 'facts' you claim " is a previously debunked conspiracy theory" is, indeed, factual, reported by several sources, of which I quoted only three.
Please, stop defending the indefensible by claiming that the facts are debunked in any meaningful way. At least limit your defense to either approval of their actions or, alternatively, approval of their goals.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
How predictable of you...
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
And these people are as stupid as you can get.
why? Even if the the troll fails then it will still catch in the grammar nazi's
Where can I go to find them all collected together, I'd quite like a binge read of fake news. Get a feel for what was said...
Nullius in verba
It would be one thing if FB drunken unicorn algorithms notified the user of potential X and detailed WHY information Y is suspect. But FB has a growing history of making "decisions" with no explanation or even worse, no evidence it has done so. Or to summarise, "utterly shit transparency"
When the algorithms start making decisions for you without your knowledge, is the machine serving you or are you serving the machine?
The real answer is shoring up, teaching critical thinking skills and proving people with information so they can make their own decisions. Given the growing body of evidence that FB, Google, Twitter's collective political ideologies guide the above non-transparent actions, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the aforementioned drunken unicorn algorithms / AI don't reflect some of that.
People need more information, no less. And they generally abhor the mere possibility that they're being manipulated, rightly so.
I'm starting to think 1984, Brave New World got one critical idea wrong - that in the future, Gov'ts would wield power to control and rewrite information. The reality is showing corporations are the behemoth we should be every bit as wary of. This is exactly what worshipping at the alter of business as the ultimate savior gets you.
No, in many cases, the market *won't* fix it.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
It would be one thing if FB drunken unicorn algorithms notified the user of potential X and detailed WHY information Y is suspect. But FB has a growing history of making "decisions" with no explanation or even worse, no evidence it has done so. Or to summarise, "utterly shit transparency"
When the algorithms start making decisions for you without your knowledge, is the machine serving you or are you serving the machine?
The real answer is shoring up, teaching critical thinking skills and proving people with information so they can make their own decisions. Given the growing body of evidence that FB, Google, Twitter's collective political ideologies guide the above non-transparent actions, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the aforementioned drunken unicorn algorithms / AI don't reflect some of that.
People need more information, no less. And they generally abhor the mere possibility that they're being manipulated, rightly so.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
Very predictable of me.
I usually know what I'm going to post.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
In Soviet Russia, you troll Facebook.
But in Corporate America, Facebook trolls YOU!
It is pretty hard to believe a company that, according to former execs, deliberately manipulates their UX in order to addict their users.
Did they spontaneously cry censorship? Or did they fall for another troll campaign? I really want to know...
Morons.
We are living in an era where many -- perhaps most -- in the public don't really believe or understand that Russia is run by a dangerous group of powerful plutocrat gangsters that would love nothing more than to see the United States break apart at best, or return to isolationism barring that. Meanwhile in China, the ChiComs are busy stealing every last bit of useful intellectual property, military or otherwise from the complacent Americans.
my view is the 2016 election night was very similar to the 2000 election night. between 10pm and 2am very little update to vote totals was taking place. then as in 2016 close states ended up going republican by not a very wide margin. the election winner did not win popular vote. the Russians had media bots. heck, one thing yet to be explained is why many of the frequent talking heads for trump on the news programs were Russians. anyway, as i felt in 2000 , i again felt in 2016, the forces that wanted the republican to win found a not very legal way to do it. not sure how, but they did. if the election had been left to just the voters clinton would be president.
What are the odds that all of these stories and data coming out about Russia Trolling the U.S. is just another part of Russia trolling the U.S.?
Yeah right you have access to google to find facts on your own if you actually care. Besides he's not exactly making a point either.
I suspect you'll get a bonus if someone argues with you Ivan.
So a few things are undeniable. First off, Facebook is most certainly censoring content. They by their own admission removed pages. Secondly, information from Russia is not inherently false, anyone who says this is committing a logical fallacy: Damning the Source http://commfaculty.fullerton.e... Were these sites Russian propaganda outlets? That is very likely. Should they have been banned from Facebook? Again, I think that was still the right move, but the above are also true, and it is a slipery slope to have any corporation decide what information US citizens have access to. Combined, Facebook, Google and Twitter are now positioned to become big brother controlling the information that you have access to and knowing every deep dark secret you would rather not have made public. It is high time that they are legally regulated to reserve the power to manipulate our lives back to the government and officials who we at least have the ability to elect or kick out of office...
As for the entire Russian investigation heating up, it has been nearly 18 months (the FBI investigation started in August 2016) and there is zero evidence that Trump or his administration colluded, in fact the only evidence that has turned up is that the Obama administration used a false report to spy on the Trump campaign, which is a felony, and everyone involved with that deception is facing 10 year prison sentences. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, but the more shrill the MSM gets about Trump collusion, you will know that the noose is closing in on the Obama administration.
In 2 years, when the economy is great, religious freedom is better protected, 2nd amendment is less infringed, crime is lower, drug deaths are down, and no collusion is found and 15 plus high ranking Obama officials are in federal prison for abuse of power (18 USC 242) https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... which is actually a crime, unlike the alleged Trump collusion, it will be interesting to see if MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the MSM go the way of the newspapers, bankrupt and looking for a new line of work. It would truly be refreshing to have a brand new media landscape who focus on getting the truth, no mater where it leads, rather than trying to "change the world" based on their twisted, alt left fascist worldviews...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I'm so pleased that people who got trolled by Ruskie plants, have a way to protect their precious, delicate egos! Yes, it must be censorship, that you got trolled, and then it was pointed out. That's the only possible explanation for you.
P.T. Barnum said "there's a sucker born every minute." Welcome to the cold truth, you got suckered. Big time!
But the suckers have already been protecting their egos for a year now. "No one changed their vote because of Russian trolling!" is what they now claim. Funny that there's a complete lack of evidence, and all opinion in that statement. Yes, protect your fragile ego, or your whole world will collapse.
Simple, don't use fb
There was no easing and the meeting where the sanctions were discussed were a bust, as reported by everyone there.
Truth.
So your problem is that as a private businessman, conducting business years before he ever considered running for president, Trump may have made a profit larger than you think is reasonable.
Meanwhile, as described over and over in the comments of this posting you ignore a payment to Bill Clinton and his money laundering foundation, whose primary purpose is to funnel money to his family in return for political favors, a clear case of bias on your part as you reject facts you don't like about a politician you support.
Meanwhile Rybolovlev might very well have been overpaying Trump in return for some business favors, a practice that is not money laundering, but merely the kind of pragmatic business practices followed in most of the world. To prove money laundering you'd have to be able to prove Trump passed the money back to Rybolovlev or some other Russian. I assume if you could do that you would have mentioned it.
Meanwhile Hillary's special favors to donators to the Clinton Foundation are well documented.
'nuff said!
So a private sale by a private citizen is the same as people in office taking money? You're excellent at warping facts and perspective. I smell a career for you at WashingtonPost, HuffingtonPost or CNN.
Today our independently wealthy citizens who own the democrat party want to JOIN them, or at least set up a corrupt system like theirs.
So your problem is that as a private businessman, conducting business years before he ever considered running for president, Trump may have made a profit larger than you think is reasonable.
No. Try to read what I wrote again and see if you can figure out what problem I have with all of that. Nothing even similar to the phrase "profit larger than I think is reasonable" is in anything I wrote.
Meanwhile, as described over and over in the comments of this posting you ignore a payment to Bill Clinton and his money laundering foundation
I'm not ignoring shit. If you have evidence that Clinton received a money laundering payment from the Russians, then please, give your evidence. If your evidence is nothing more than circumstantial, then you can put your circumstantial evidence of $500k being laundered by Clinton against my circumstantial evidence of dozens of millions of dollars being laundered by Trump. I don't want to ignore any evidence, circumstantial or not. I can't stand the Clintons, so if you've got the smoking gun then bring it out big guy.
a clear case of bias on your part as you reject facts you don't like about a politician you support.
You're a fucking idiot if you think I support the Clintons, which makes all of your other claims about what I wrote pretty useless. Stop attacking me and support your statements and claims. You don't win this argument by attacking me.
Meanwhile Rybolovlev might very well have been overpaying Trump in return for some business favors, a practice that is not money laundering
Um, OK. And he might very well have been laundering money. Who the fuck knows? What I know is that he specifically said this was an investment property, he did not say anything about "favors". If he had a "favor" to Trump, you know what works for that? Paying cash. You don't need to pay double on an "investment" in order to return a favor. You just return the favor, no reason to get into a terrible investment.
the kind of pragmatic business practices followed in most of the world
You're not an intelligent person, are you? Most of the world does not follow the kind of "pragmatic business practices" that involve buying an "investment" for double what it is actually worth. Overpaying for an investment is not a pragmatic practice of any kind.
To prove money laundering you'd have to be able to prove Trump passed the money back to Rybolovlev or some other Russian.
No you don't. The guy pays Trump with his dirty money, but for Trump it's clean, because he sold the guy something. So for Trump that money isn't dirty, he doesn't have to explain where he got it because he has a bill of sale. And the Russian gets a property to sell for clean money. Sure, he paid $100 million in dirty money in order to get back $50 million of clean cash, but that's the cost of doing business. So, no, I do not have to show that Trump passed shit to anyone. If you want to prove it's money laundering then you need to prove the money was dirty to begin with, which means the Russian needs to straight up tell you the money is dirty. Now I'm no master criminal, but I think that one of the general rules of money laundering is to not tell everyone that you're doing it. This is why I have said that this is circumstantial evidence. I really really doubt it's going to put anyone in jail but it is very clearly Trump doing deals with shady Russians. I'd love to give you a list of other people who overpaid for condos in Trump Tower, but those are overseas shell corporations without an obvious owner, so we don't know where that money came from. It's convenient how it works that way. Even so, people, similar to yourself, see straight up treason in allegations against people like the Clintons that have far less evidence than this, so surely you wouldn't try to just brush all of this away because it'
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So a private sale by a private citizen is the same as people in office taking money?
Did I say that? Did I draw any sort of equivalence? If Clinton did anything illegal, lock her up. If Trump did anything illegal, lock his ass up too. That's pretty simple. What I think is stupid is idiots who ignore the dozens of millions of Russian dollars moving through Trump's properties while focusing on payments to the Clintons that don't even total 1 million dollars. What I think is stupid is idiots who are laser-focused on an ex-politician with little to no influence when the past and present activities of the current president indicate a major threat to the country.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Centralized authorities gave us Napoleon. And decentralized (well, less centralized) power gave us Robespierre and The Terror.
The trick is to find a system that does not lead to oppression and avoids the worst tendencies of either centralization or decentralization. The same is true of the political Left and Right; both have the seeds of oppression and darkness within them.
Success is in finding the good and avoiding the bad.