Slashdot Mirror
Pro-Gun Russian Bots Flood Twitter After Parkland Shooting (wired.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: In the wake of Wednesday's Parkland, Florida school shooting, which resulted in 17 deaths, troll and bot-tracking sites reported an immediate uptick in related tweets from political propaganda bots and Russia-linked Twitter accounts. Hamilton 68, a website created by Alliance for Securing Democracy, tracks Twitter activity from accounts it has identified as linked to Russian influence campaigns. On RoBhat Labs' Botcheck.me, a website created by two Berkeley students to track 1500 political propaganda bots, all of the top two-word phrases used in the last 24 hours -- excluding President Trump's name -- are related to the tragedy: School shooting, gun control, high school, Florida school. The top hashtags from the last 24 hours include Parkland, guncontrol, and guncontrolnow.
While RoBhat Labs tracks general political bots, Hamilton 68 focuses specifically on those linked to the Russian government. According to the group's data, the top link shared by Russia-linked accounts in the last 48 hours is a 2014 Politifact article that looks critically at a statistic cited by pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Twitter accounts tracked by the group have used the old link to try to debunk today's stats about the frequency of school shootings. Another top link shared by the network covers the "deranged" Instagram account of the shooter, showing images of him holding guns and knives, wearing army hats, and a screenshot of a Google search of the phrase "Allahu Akbar." Characterizing shooters as deranged lone wolves with potential terrorist connections is a popular strategy of pro-gun groups because of the implication that new gun laws could not have prevented their actions. Meanwhile, some accounts with large bot followings are already spreading misinformation about the shooter's ties to far-left group Antifa, even though the Associated Press reported that he was a member of a local white nationalist group. The Twitter account Education4Libs, which RoBhat Labs shows is one among the top accounts tweeted at by bots, is among the prominent disseminators of that idea.
While RoBhat Labs tracks general political bots, Hamilton 68 focuses specifically on those linked to the Russian government. According to the group's data, the top link shared by Russia-linked accounts in the last 48 hours is a 2014 Politifact article that looks critically at a statistic cited by pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Twitter accounts tracked by the group have used the old link to try to debunk today's stats about the frequency of school shootings. Another top link shared by the network covers the "deranged" Instagram account of the shooter, showing images of him holding guns and knives, wearing army hats, and a screenshot of a Google search of the phrase "Allahu Akbar." Characterizing shooters as deranged lone wolves with potential terrorist connections is a popular strategy of pro-gun groups because of the implication that new gun laws could not have prevented their actions. Meanwhile, some accounts with large bot followings are already spreading misinformation about the shooter's ties to far-left group Antifa, even though the Associated Press reported that he was a member of a local white nationalist group. The Twitter account Education4Libs, which RoBhat Labs shows is one among the top accounts tweeted at by bots, is among the prominent disseminators of that idea.
That Twitter bots from Russia are some super effective way to change public opinion then:
1 - Why is the anti-gun lobby so powerful and loud?
2 - If they're so smart at brain washing us, how are we sure they're not intentionally leaking the "Russian" bots so that the gun CONTROL lobby will be the one effectively empowered?
I mean, if we're going to talk about one of the worlds (if not THE) most effective propaganda organization on the planet. We're just supposed to take them at "opposite" of their words? They're smart enough to brainwash us, but not smart enough to intentionally get us to react to the opposite?
You ain't seen propaganda until the NRA starts rolling.
LOL What?!
You think it's the left's fault that a gun worshipping Pro-Trump neo-Nazi shot up a school?
You fucking morons and Russian collaborators never stop sinking...
Get fucked, Nazi.
I don't want any gun control legislation. I don't care what tragedy occurred. It's unconstitutional. All of it.
If you want to restrict guns do it legally - amend the constitution first, then create laws that don't violate the constitution.
As it is, every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional. If you disagree you're incorrect. If you don't like that right guaranteed by the constitution, you're free to work to change the constitution. Any restriction at any other level is illegal.
Well, you're not wrong, but you're stupid and your argument is even stupider. If you were smart, you'd have brought up some solutions. Or even a diagnosis of the problem. Here, let me try for you:
Melania Trump is right about something you've completely lost perspective on. The biggest problem facing our nation right now, if you boil it down to the root cause, is actually bullying. That's right, I said it; Guns didn't cause this tragedy - bullying did. Maybe she's smarter than she looks. She's clearly smarter than you and this poor tard that just shot up his school. Maybe she's smarter than all of us... now that's a truly horrifying thought.
If they can detect these bots then why isn't Twitter immediately wiping them out?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Why is it exactly that Russia supposedly has the monopoly on propaganda bots?
Why is it exactly that Russia's propaganda bots are the only ones supposed to be effective?
We need to start facing the fact that the leftist side of the population is literally mentally defective. They cannot handle having the same rights as sane people. All that giving them civil liberties does is cheapen the value of liberty for all of us, because the first thing they do with their liberty given a chance is self-destruct it to sabotage other people's liberties, because a leftist has no idea what to do with freedom because they are the product of brainwashing. Their free will has been stamped out.
We need a schism immediately. If you're so docile as to not see or care about the divide in mental stability and integrity, you are going to fall on the wrong side. You have to take a stand and say enough is enough, "equality" does not work and never will, and the "progress" of "progressivism" in the last 100+ years was really just a complete farce and a brazen attack on western civilization and all of its citizens.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
The CIA director talked about them 'disrupting' the election.
I know to those on the Left, this is synonymous with "got Trump elected."
I don't know that's necessarily what he meant.
The fact is, whatever they can dump onto American social media to enhance outrage, to enhance division, to gin up anger - that all counts as 'disrupting'.
-Styopa
The founders recognized the right to private ownership of all arms. Heck, they even commissioned privateers who owned private warships (yes, like the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston), to help support their cause.
And, they expected that to continue. The Constitution specifically provides for it in Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
They also recognized the right to own slaves.
The Constitution is not sacred. Treating it as such is the result of people being conditioned by authoritarians.
You are welcome on my lawn.
My point is that for most of US history, the Second Amendment was not interpreted as an absolute right of private citizens to own guns. For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States. Only with the rise of radicalized NRA in the 1980s did this change, and with it came the rash of school shootings and mass gun slaughter.
We don't need to amend the Constitution. We only need to change the makeup of the Supreme Court by a vote or two. It will happen, thank god. And I say as someone who has owned guns in four decades.
You are welcome on my lawn.
because the people who oppose all gun regulation have a lobby (the NRA) telling them how to vote, they listen, they vote and above all they're single issuer voters.
You have that backwards. I know how I want the NRA to vote, they listen, and (mostly) lobby in my interest. As long as they do that I send them money (voluntarily, I might add). As for "single issue"? I don't know anyone who is a single issue voter. Then again, I don't hang out in churches, poetry readings, SJW meetings, nor white pride meetings.
Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?
Ireland? How about the cases when the USSR fell and people formed militias to fight back against new communist governments trying to setup? Of course, sometimes they also "free themselves" into tyranny. See the fall of Rhodesia, and the rise of Zimbabwe. You can also see it in South Africa, prior to the end of apartheid, and now you can see the fast-rush of people trying to defend against the new anti-white apartheid.
Just study some damn history once and awhile.
Om, nomnomnom...
In 1873, Wichita, KS outlawed the carrying of revolvers within municipal limits. The sheriff would confiscate your gun at the town border and give you a check, like a coat check. You could get your gun back when you left.
In 1879, the town of Dodge City, Kansas had a billboard at the town limits that said, "The Carrying of Firearms is Strictly Prohibited". You can google a photograph of the town taken back then that shows the sign.
Tombstone, AZ in the 1880s had a law against carrying firearms.
There were more gun control laws in the Wild West than there are in 2018 America.
You are welcome on my lawn.
None of this matters because the people who oppose all gun regulation have a lobby (the NRA) telling them how to vote, they listen, they vote and above all they're single issuer voters.
That's just wrong. Some of us prefer the highest law in the nation to be upheld as it's written. There are plenty of other rights enumerated in there that I don't want to see trampled on. Giving the government ability to ignore any part of it is a dangerous precedent and must be fought against at every step of the way.
If you want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, then do it the proper way with another amendment. If you think that's unreasonably hard, then hold a constitutional convention and write a new constitution that's easier to amend. And if you think that's too hard, then the only option you have left is to gather your fellow anti-gun folks, pick up your weapons and conquer everyone who disagrees with you.
Maybe life on our side of the Atlantic pond is a tiny bit different than in the US, but...
I'd prefer to take it to the anti-gun's conclusion: anytime something is used for evil, the entire industry must be destroyed.
...I see quite a bit of difference between gun and all the example you cite.
In the past couple of decade I've never been through any situation where I've been thinking I'm lucky/happy to have a gun because it really saved the situation, or thinking that I wish I could have had one.
Guns don't seem fundamentally important and useful objects in everyday life. They mostly bring in a danger and useless risk without bringing much benefit.
DUI? Ban all cars,
Yup. Cars kill people (Well technically, irresponsible drivers do, whatever, bla bla...)
But cars are tremendously useful, (even though our more densely populated city tend to enjoy better public transportations).
Lots of services and people could not get their job done without one.
There are risks to car, but the huge amount of benefits largely outweigh them.
drugs (including medicines).
Medecine can kill people (errors, side effects, addiction to prescription drugs, development of drugs-resisting microbes due to industrial over-use and over-prescription, etc.)
Still, they save lives. A lot of them. Think the drastic reduction of death since the discovery and development of antibiotics.
There are risks to medecine, but the huge amount of benefits largely outweigh them.
Assault with a baseball bat? Ban sports.
Do I really need to mention the health benefits of sports ?
Every day, countless of times bats get swung, and most of the time it's to hit a ball as part of some healthy outdoor sport.
(Then a tiny proportion is to hit a ball in front of a camera as part of a heavily corrupted televisual event in order to make money,
and a couple of times it's on someone else head).
There are risks to sports equipment, but the huge amount of benefits largely outweigh them.
Cyberbullying? Ban computers.
You're writing on one. I don't think I even need to explain how my above logic applies also to this of your examples...
Works for a lot of things!
Yup, works even for kitchen implements:
knife kill people ! let's ban kitchen.
And again my argument works too :
- How many time did someone got stabbed with a kitchen knife in your neighborhood ?
- How many time did you yourself use your kitchen knife to make you a sandwich, cut some cheese, or any other common use to feed your self.
Yup, there are risks of having knife in your home. But the vast amount of time, they're mostly used to prepare food.
alcohol, and drugs
Here the situation is a bit different :
- the usefulness is a lot lower (mainly entertainment, and some social use)
- the risk aren't that great (there are long term risk on the health due to excessive use. But occasional and reasonable use isn't lethal).
End result ? These are heavily regulated.
Not everyone is allowed to acquire these (e.g.: minor aren't)
etc.
And now let's look at the gun :
like knifes they can be used to kill people.
But unlike knives, we're not in the situations (at least in our corner of the world) where everyday million of rounds are fired and thus making the life of everyone much easier.
There's no tremendous benefit in everyone of the population happily shooting each other.
Again, I've reached my current point in life without ever being in a situation where a gun was necessary, unlike any other of your example.
It seems to me that there are no obvious everyday use for guns for the vast majority of the population.
Thus in my opinion, it should go the same route as drugs :
it should be regulated.
Some professions (police enforcement) might n
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Every decent person in America should be down at their local NRA office and riding the people inside out of town
You're advocating violence against people because of their political views, and yet also want to remove their ability to defend themselves against you?
Nice way to justify their entire fucking position.