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.
What we need is news control laws. When the Constitution was written, there were no high speed presses, no electronic news, no way people could be flooded 24/7 with "news" and commentary.
It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about, sometimes just to get their own 24 hours of fame. Yet, the modern media irresponsibly continues to glorify these events and saturate every media channel with them, just encouraging more copy-cats. That clearly needs to change.
We have to do something. We already have lots of gun laws. We now need some reasonable, common-sense, media control laws. Just as an private citizen can't get and has no reason to have a machine gun, no media needs a high speed Internet web site - when the "right to a free press" was created, it was in reference to Gutenberg presses. Same with radio/tv/cable. Such powerful methods of communication, so easily abused, should be highly regulated for private use. Only the government is responsible enough to be allowed to use them. Journalists should be licensed, subject to a background check to make sure they're not mentally ill, and don't have a criminal history. Photocopy machines should be registered. Scented magazine inserts should be outlawed. Cheap, Saturday night special, smartphones should be outlawed. A license should be required to carry a concealed smartphone.
As a bonus, such restrictions would also solve all of this "Russian facebook/twitter" cruft.
None of these reasonable, common-sense actions would infringe on 1st Amendment or natural rights in any way, but would go a long way to ending the bloodshed. Think of the children.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The police already debunked the fake news about him being part of the White nationalist group.
The photos posted were, allegedly, from his facebook and instagram accounts but they were immediately denounced as coming from the wrong accounts but those were the ones now scrubbed and now those pics are being denounced as fakes.
So how about all the anti-gun nut bots? How about the bots spreading the fake news about this guy allegedly being a white supremacist. They ARE out there - don't you think the Russians would play both sides to increase dissension in America and not just the one side you personally find distasteful?
New low for you guys... very new low
Captcha: Stooge
the kind of 'gun control' I will get behind is dealing with these 'gun free zones'. Not just in public schools but private places like theaters etc. IMO, and purely IMO, there should be a law that states that ANY establishment that restricts ones constitutional right to bear arms, they MUST, without question, provide ARMED security for the entire portion of time that said citizens are denied their rights. Failure to comply is an immediate forfeiture of the establishments defense against Wrongful Death civil prosecution. In other words, if you tell someone they cannot carry a weapon to assist in their defense, the establishment fails to provide security, and it results in death, the family members can sue for 1 BILLION in wrongful deaths and it will be a default judgement against the establishment. It might have once been named Cinemark Enterntainment, but after their negligence, it is now labled the Bob Jones movie theatre because he owned their asses.
why is it that idiots like you always talk about GUN violence and not just VIOLENCE. People have been slaughtering each other longer than guns have been around. How many people died on Bastille day in France last year? Was that a mass shooting? No fucktard,, it was a fucking truck. This kid was highly intelligent. He fucking used a fire alarm to lure people into the hallway to create a shooting gallery. Do you really fucking think a lack of guns would have stopped this massacre? He could have used IED's or just about anything else available. But feel free to post as the anonymous pussy that you are. Spineless coward should be your title.
You're under that impression, because of the people in this country stirring the shit, attempting to keep the left and the right distracted and at each other's throats, while they continue to loot what's left of America.
Just about every war we've ever gotten into has started over a lie. You'd figure people would have learned by now. Yet all you have to say is that country X is looking at us the wrong way to get everyone back into the fighting mood again. Pro-gun Russian bots.....give me a break!
I am a 6yr veteran of the first gulf war. Yes i have used many of the same guns you are talking about. This guy WAS smart enough to build a bomb. For fucks sake there are uneducated jihadists in Iraq building IEDs every day and their education extends to addition, some multiplication, and fucking their sisters. He was smart enough to use a fire alarm.. where do kids congregate after a fire alarm is pulled... in a parking lot. So yes a truck would have been a very effective tool for mass murder.
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.
Fine, you have the right to bare arms (lets forget about the militia qualifier since the courts have).
It doesn't follow that you the right to bare any arm you wish. You don't have the right to own assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc, etc.
A low capacity, low power, handgun is perfectly sufficient for self-defence. A single shot rifle is perfectly adequate for hunting. Fancier guns locked up at a shooting range are good for recreational shooting. Mandatory background checks for any purchase cut down on some of the illegal weapons. Maybe even mandatory training would pass muster.
You'd still have the right to bear arms, but you'd cut out a lot of the mass shootings, and maybe you put a dent in the gun culture that kills so many people.
I stole this Sig
Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ahh. A sophist. "Militia" doesn't mean what you think it means, and a prefatory clause isn't binding.
As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?
Living in a system with the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty means you accept more risk. Fortunately for you, you can move to almost anywhere else and trade that freedom and liberty for less risk and more security. Your choice.
Except you're not actually accepting of more risk in exchange for more freedom, at least not if you're like most people who oppose gun control.
People generally try to maintain a certain level of risk. If your car gets a seat belt you speed up, if you hit wet pavement you slow down. Guns and gun control are no different.
Ever notice the other things people who favour gun rights tend to believe? They think law enforcement should have a much freer hand to enforce order. They want to get rid of Mexicans, Muslims, and other outsiders who seem dangerous. They try to repress LGBTQ and people who live alternative lifestyles. This isn't a coincidence, they correctly realize that guns are dangerous, so at the same time they're trying to make guns more available they're trying to reduce the number of people whom they find threatening (particularly if they have a gun).
It's the same thing that's happening now, neither side wants school shootings. So one side wants gun control to reduce the number of shootings, the other wants guns in the classroom so the teachers can enforce greater order and they want those weird loner kids made normal so they're less likely to become a shooter.
Gun rights people don't have a greater belief in freedom, they're just willing to live with a higher perceived risk from firearms by accepting a lower perceived risk from other sources.
I stole this Sig
As a fellow European coming from Finland that has more guns than the UK per capita (we have a large rural population and a lot of stuff that's hunted) I'm gonna try to be the guy to see both sides here.
You're correct in that, with no guns there's almost no school shootings. We've had 2 in the whole of 2000s (with a total of 18 dead including the 2 perps) and we have to my knowledge the most guns per capita of the western nations after the US. But the thing is since the constitution in the states is different, it makes very little sense in these discussions to hammer say, the British model because it's should be clear that something quite like that will never fly in the US, which is where the discussion usually ends. However thing is there is middle-ground between 'ban all guns' and status quo of the US. The whole gun control 'debate' in the US from what I've gathered is more of a shouting match of 2 sides neither of which are actually willing to work together to do something to repair the situation but are both insisting that the magical answer is somehow 'more guns' or 'less guns'. It's not just about the absolute number of firearms, it's more about what methods are taken to try and prevent mentally unstable people from acquiring weapons.
It ought to be obvious that as long as it is possible for nearly anyone to walk into a store and walk out with a gun or guns without any background checks, the amount of gun-crime will stay high. The standard counter-argument for requiring a background check and/or a doctor's statement of mental sanity (as is the case in here for example) is that it will not help because criminals will always get guns from the black market, but that's not true. I mean, obviously some segment of criminals will always be able to acquire guns illegally, but the point is that most people who commit crimes are not criminal masterminds that have the will or the ability or the mental stability to do so, so requiring some checks before one can walk out of the store with a weapon does provably reduce the amount of gun crime and deaths without removing the option of gun ownership from law-abiding, sane people. But related to this problem is the fact that all of this is handled on a local level which is what makes it so tricky. I mean, any amount of background checks or sensible vetting makes little to no difference if one can drive 30 miles out of town and get one's gun across the state line without a check. For gun control measures to work they have to be nation-wide, which means involving the federal government which immediately drives many on the right in the US into full paranoia mode.
Cars are sometimes evoked as a comparison with people pointing out that you need to see a doctor and take part in training before you're given a license to drive a vehicle. People then point out that well, owning a car is not a constitutional right so the comparison is not valid, but that's not true. Think for a moment if it was the case that owning a car was a constitutional right. Would that mean it would make sense to make it legal to just sell a vehicle to anyone who walks through the door as long as they're of a certain age? Would that be something that would make sense for public safety overall? If not, then how come the same attitude makes sense for guns?
So to summarize; dear fellow non-american westerners: stop throwing the 'ït's so obvious, just get rid of all the guns and the problem will be solved, duh!' -card onto the table as it's not helpful in the context of the american legal landscape and overall attitude towards guns. And dear Americans: stop treating all discussion about gun control as if the advocates wanna get rid of the 2nd amendment altogether and consider the fact that there are methods of limiting the availability of guns to mentally unstable individuals that could be implemented without confiscating all of the weapons from everyone or removing the 2nd amendment.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The bad wording of that clause in the 2nd amendment is part of the problem. Even if we accept your interpretation of it, "arms" is vague and was probably never intended to allow individuals to own WMD.
The US is uniquely unable to deal with mass shootings because of this, and because politically it is impossible to properly fund mental healthcare.
The US also has a problem with the far right, particularly supremacists. Elliot Rodger was probably the first young man to be radicalized by the far right on the internet, and since then we have seen a string of similar murderers and terrorists attacking schools. Again, the US seems to be finding it very hard to deal with, because any attempt to even study the problem is met with howls of "mah free speech!" and censorship. The marketplace of ideas has failed to deal with this problem, just like marketplaces always do.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
yet he could buy an assault rifle, without even a responsible adult to agree to keep control of it most of the time, at age 18?
Average age of US combatants in Vietnam pisses all over that argument.
Very nicely said. However, one other aspect of American culture, which seems to be more or less unique, is "if you're not with us, you're against us". For some reason, everything has to be completely binary - if you're not "pro" guns, then you want to completely repeal the constitution and spend the rest of your days eating babies. If you're not anti-guns, then you're obviously a psychopath who's just working out how to kill as many men, women and children as possible.
It's hard to have any sort of sensible conversation about anything at all when there can only be two highly extreme views on any subject. Even a well reasoned and considered post such as yours looks pretty inflammatory when viewed with your binary glasses on, and that's a real shame.
I'll just end by saying that I'm a Brit, and I'm really fed up with hearing about shootings in the US. It turns out this 'officially' the 18th mass shooting this year (yeah, so that's one every 60 hours), and yet the first I've heard about - and even that's enough to piss me off. How on earth anyone in the USA isn't frothing at the mouth and having involuntary ticks by now is beyond me.