Slashdot Mirror


Russian Fake News Ecosystem Targets Syrian Human Rights Workers (securityledger.com)

chicksdaddy shares a report from The Security Ledger: Kremlin linked news sites like RT and Sputnik figure prominently in an online disinformation campaign portraying Syrian humanitarian workers ("White Helmets") as terrorists and crisis actors, according to an analysis (PDF) by researchers at University of Washington and Harvard. An online "echosystem" of propaganda websites including Russia backed news outlets Sputnik and RT is attacking the credibility of humanitarian workers on the ground in rebel occupied Syria, according to a new analysis by researchers at The University of Washington and Harvard University. Online rumors circulated through so called "alternative" media sites have attacked the Syrian Civil Defense (aka "White Helmets") as "crisis actors" and Western agents working on behalf of the U.S. and NATO. Statistical analysis of the online rumors reveal a tight network of websites sharing nearly identical content via Twitter and other social media platforms, wrote Kate Starbird. Starbird is an Assistant Professor of Human Centered Design & Engineering at University of Washington and a leading expert on so-called "crisis informatics."

In activity reminiscent of the disinformation campaigns that roiled the U.S. Presidential election in 2016, articles by what Starbird describes as "a few prominent journalists and bloggers" writing for self described "alternative" news sites like 21stCenturyWire, GlobalResearch, MintPressNews, and ActivistPost are picked up by other, smaller and more niche websites including both left- and right-leaning partisan news sites, "clickbait sites," and conspiracy theory websites. Government funded media outlets from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia figure prominently in the Syrian disinformation campaign, Starbird's team found. In particular, "Russian government-funded media outlets (i.e. SputnikNews and RT) play a prominent and multi-faceted role within this ecosystem," she wrote.

259 comments

  1. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For millennials (particularly the one that posted this): 'fake news' is only a concern if you, the dumbass, believe it. 'Fake news' has been with us under its former name, 'propaganda' since human beings have had the ability to relay information to one another, and yet, time and humanity have marched on. Is there anything, anything at all, that folks 35 and under are capable of applying critical thought to? Is there a single millennial out there that wasn't molded into just a human-robot-victim hybrid by their parents? If this is representative of your 'higher education', you are right: your degrees are worthless. Just because you invent a name for something and start a meme does not mean you have personally discovered anything or that your style of sharing is anythng resembling accute or profound. Your parents have created the most epic failure of intelligence, consciousness, and presence of mind or heart the world has ever seen.

    1. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Da, da, da

    2. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a direct reply to you (and I agree with what you wrote) but I don't have an account so need to reply to something.

      "Humanitarian workers"?

      Don't make me laugh. They are filthy disgusting wahabbi terrorists. Fucking liberal snowflakes will be the first people they turn on when they've finished murdering the Shi'a and the Christians.

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

      The only ones who dislike the White Helmets are Assad's regime and their Russian and Iranian allies. Online it's an infallible way to spot them. Here of course you're all Russians, even the Canadians.

    4. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am English you liberal bellend.

    5. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, i can confirm there's another collective which dislikes White Helmets called skeptics as there is no such thing as an infallible organization,
      there is no such thing as an organization which doesn't require oversight, and there is no such organization which can't be corrupted and influenced if it depends on donations and money like white helmets do (somebody needs to pay for those as well as tickets, and those who pay also influence or are paid themselves and influenced in a domino effect which trickles down into the White Helmets).
      Especially since there is a suspicious lack of evidence regarding certain people recorded being "helped" by white helmets, and hospitals showcasing contradictory information and documentation as well as eyewitness reports regarding the validity of the work and claims of the white helmets in certain situations. The suspicion being that the white helmets set a few things up or portrayed and forwarded false information to add to a mix of confusion.
      Both the West and Russia are extremely capable of propaganda, and neither are "good guys". There's only interest rather than good, otherwise the West would never have been involved in the Middle East and instead would have let the Middle East sort itself out naturally even if by means of bloodshed much like the West had to go through in order to become the West.

    6. Re: Sigh by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Exactly :

      https://consortiumnews.com/201... /beware-of-white-helmets-bearing-news/

    7. Re:Sigh by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Fake news is propaganda, but not all propaganda is fake news. In fact, the best propaganda is truthful.

    8. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol nothing is more hilarious to me than old people ranting about the perceived failure of the current youth. Get off my lawn!!

      Apparently baby boomers falling for russian ads on facebook somehow makes millennials "the most epic failure of intelligence, consciousness, and presence of mind or heart the world has ever seen" - not the past generations which enslaved their fellow man, burned people alive for being witches, sentenced people to death for heliocentrism, etc. The logic is strong with you granpda, keep it up.

    9. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems like an incredibly dumb comment to make given that most people who have fallen for fake news are baby boomers, which is hence why we have Trump and Brexit. In fact, you complain about the use of the term fake news over propaganda and yet Trump, who is most assuredly not a millenial is one of the biggest proponents of that term throwing it around in tweets left and right.

      It's a bit weird therefore to say millenials are the ones that fall for propaganda when it's the boomers who are voting off the back of it and millenials are the ones calling it out and most unhappy about it.

      In fact in general it's almost universally true that people who fall for the Russian propaganda, are climate change deniers, believe in religious fairy tales, and other such fiction are 55+ whilst millennials are least likely to fall for this sort of nonsense.

      But I guess sure, blame millennials for your own generation's gullibility if it makes you feel better about your own stupidity. The statistics don't agree with your fiction though, it's pretty clear that millenials are on average far less gullible than boomers.

  2. Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do we really have to have an anti-russia or anti-potus post every. single. fucking. day. on a tech news website?

    You are not changing anybody's mind and you never will.

    1. Re: Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I too am American and many people agree with us that Russia is innocent and America supports trump amazing work and American first.

    2. Re: Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not misunderestimate the American public. They will swallow anything.

    3. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, it seems the advocacy groups have turned on slashdot now. Get used to the most mundane of things turned into an 'anti-trump' sh*tpost in a wall of propaganda. Sigh.

      Yes, it's no longer the Slashdot it once was when you first joined... today.

      Hi Vlad!

    4. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HE DISAGREED WITH US TOLERANT LIBERALS!!!! He must be an evil Russian destroying our democracy. I bet he doesn't even like transexuals raping our children, like all good tolerant Americans do.

    5. Re:Enough Already by darkharlequin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buddy, I've been on slashdot since I stumbled upon Chips and Dips looking for hints on how to use gimp. Rob had some cool ideas and I stayed for the tech news. The fact that this site has an obvious political bias makes me sick when I remember it was all about tech and not 15 pages of: "well this is tech because well reasons and global warming" or "you better believe this needs to be talked about because 'tenuous reasons' and Trump said mean things" which somehow peripherally affects tech--it doesn't. At this point, i'd be happy sitting in a global warming induced desert on my russian government controlled non-net neutral, non general purpose, NSA, FSA, and Chinese intelligence backdoored approved propaganda device praising trump's 32nd landslide election and knowing that my starving children are starving to make america great again.

      --
      i am so very tired....
    6. Re:Enough Already by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't join today.

      So let me reiterate what he said : Yes, it seems the advocacy groups have turned on slashdot now. Get used to the most mundane of things turned into an 'anti-trump' sh*tpost in a wall of propaganda. Sigh.

      Now... will you call me "Vlad" too?

    7. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're obviously a Misha.

    8. Re:Enough Already by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Most people lurk as ACs for quite a while before joining, I know I was here for a good 3-4 years before making this account. He's got a point and your only rebuttal is to claim that he's a Russian agent. Lovely.

      Wait, I thought Russia wanted to "destabilize" us? Isn't that what you're contributing to? So tell me, why are you trying to divide us again? Would you like to tell us why, even knowing the Russian plans, you decided to go and help them?

      I don't know who decided that racism was a great rebuttal, but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan", the racist implication being that even if you somehow got that sloppy accusation right after making it so many times, everything they said would be unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being Russian. Well, it's not like you had any rebuttals other than that... clearly some handwavy accusations are enough for #TopMinds like you guys. Let's not even address what was said, let's just say it's clearly wrong and avoid any kind of details or rebuttals or any sort of thinking whatsoever. Heck, even the paper just claims to be tracking who gets their info from where. It doesn't appear to actually bother establishing any of their claims about the underlying facts with evidence, it simply assumes them as granted and tracks the flow of information (which is the only thing it appears to have actual facts regarding).

    9. Re:Enough Already by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Yup, I remember Ars Technica - when it stopped reporting gadgets and tech and started running lots of political articles.... I stopped reading it. I think many others did too, after a fair amount of complaining in the comments.

      The trouble is, there were too many people shouting abuse at each other in the comments section that I support it made short-term financial sense for them, to do this. Gotta love that clickbait ad revenue!

    10. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Most people lurk as ACs for quite a while before joining, I know I was here for a good 3-4 years before making this account.

      Well, it's not as if one could ever lie about that. You've persuaded me!

      I don't know who decided that racism was a great rebuttal, but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan", the racist implication being that even if you somehow got that sloppy accusation right after making it so many times, everything they said would be unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being Russian.

      Russian is a race? Why have I never seen that in a census form? I am shocked to learn that I am a racial self-hater, considering all the Eastern European ancestry. Must be the Western European ancestry rearing its ugly head. And they call it all "Caucasian." Such irony.

      Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.

      Wait, I thought Russia wanted to "destabilize" us? Isn't that what you're contributing to? So tell me, why are you trying to divide us again? Would you like to tell us why, even knowing the Russian plans, you decided to go and help them?

      You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. If he is a Russian troll, why not make the charge? If he is not a Russian troll, why should I refrain from suggesting that he is behaving like one? I mean, you've persuaded me, so it's obviously the latter. But for the good of the country, or just to not be "racist," I should simply ignore anyone with a contrary opinion is a "DNC shill" or a member of an "advocacy group" posting anti-Trump propaganda rather than repeating the Truth (as declared by Fox & Friends).

      Since you don't appear to have a problem with the political implication that everything someone says is unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being alleged "DNC shills" or members of "advocacy groups," and thus merely spouting anti-Trump propaganda, you'll excuse me for engaging in any sort of political commentary that I wish. Or not. It's not as if I'll stop because one person has an almost unique conception of race, or my posts don't rise to his personal standards.

    11. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we really have to have an anti-russia or anti-potus post every. single. fucking. day. on a tech news website?

      You are not changing anybody's mind and you never will.

      Deal with it. Russia isn't going away and will continue to push propaganda until someone does something about it.

      If you don't like people talking about it, suggest something that will make Russia stop.

    12. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan"...

      BTW, links please... having searched my comment history I cannot find any references to "Ivan," much less remarks beyond the two made today concerning the quite trollish DejaBu account.

    13. Re: Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Russians just 'elected' Putin for a fourth time.

    14. Re:Enough Already by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      You seem to prefer to use Vlad and you have such a comment right here in this very story.

    15. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      So "completely full of racist remarks, like calling people 'Ivan'" is simply a lie.

      Gotcha.

    16. Re:Enough Already by Xenographic · · Score: 2

      > Russian is a race?

      Do you really think that's a great way to excuse bigotry? Let's just lump everyone you don't like into one giant group and hate them collectively for the actions of certain individual members. And you really think that's doesn't deserve to be called out? I mean, you seem to think that "I think that guy is Russian" is a way to discredit everyone.

      > Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.

      There are plenty of shills for all sorts of parties, including political ones like ShareBlue / Correct the Record, what's sloppy is to call out a particular person for working for the Russians when you have nothing in the way of evidence other than them disagreeing with you.

      "Shills exist, you disagree with me and I've never seen you before, therefore you're a shill" isn't logic and it's a very weak position to take. You should have an actual rebuttal to whatever they say if you want to be heard, otherwise you're just a noisemaker.

      The point is that you're just making noise, you're not presenting any thought or argument, you're just poisoning the well. This, ironically, is *exactly* the sort of discord you say the Russians are supposed to be sowing among us to begin with!

      If we're going to blindly accuse people of being Russian trolls, shouldn't we start by looking at those who are helping to sow division, like you? You know, the very thing everyone seems to agree that they're doing?

      Anyhow, you're free to post and say what you want, but it's pretty clear that you're just a noisy bigot. Frankly, that discredits you far more than anything I could say about you.

      That said, it could be amusing to let you explain your bigotry to the bar association :) You could have fun listing them every time you appear pro hac vice...

    17. Re:Enough Already by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy

      I'll leave this here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bowhUWl6rxQ

    18. Re:Enough Already by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      The original said Ivan or Vlad, looks like the wrong one got cut in editing, so you're not really helping in admitting the substance of the accusation.

      Guess it's a lawyer thing?

    19. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      That said, it could be amusing to let you explain your bigotry to the bar association :) You could have fun listing them every time you appear pro hac vice...

      An empty threat. Sod off.

    20. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Hard to admit to a comment history "completely full of racist remarks" when you can only identify two uses of "Vlad" in connection with one poster on one day, and "Vlad" is not a racist remark.

      But take it as you like it... I tremble in anticipation of your complaint to the bar.

    21. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So using someone's alleged ancestry to mock someone isn't racist to you?

      Please do tell us more about how you're not a racist.

    22. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      So using someone's alleged ancestry to mock someone isn't racist to you?

      nationality != ancestry; nationality != race.

      Please do tell us more about how you're not a racist.

      See above. Pretty easy task, actually.

    23. Re:Enough Already by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      The original said Ivan or Vlad, looks like the wrong one got cut in editing, so you're not really helping in admitting the substance of the accusation.

      The best part of all of this is that you haven't even considered that "Hi Vlad!" is a sarcastic greeting to the ultimate employer of all those Internet Research Agency hacks, Vladimir Putin.

      But perhaps President Putin is a race to himself, which would again be racist. I'm so confused.

    24. Re:Enough Already by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Long term poster, utterly sick of endless Russia articles here.

      I get that we have some politics on the site, but this is getting ridiculous and almost every time the"evidence"is miniscule but the reaction is screeching.

      No I'm not even in America, I didn't vote, but this endless ruining of a classic tech site news, needs to stop.

      Not posting AC.

    25. Re: Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every jurisdiction in the USA requires attorneys to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. I fail to see how criticizing a foreign government (NOT a race) actively involved in subverting that Constitution would be seen as at odds with that oath.

    26. Re: Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's just shorthand, saves having to type out every time, "I believe you are a paid troll pushing the views of the Russian state." Nothing racist about it.

    27. Re:Enough Already by cathryn · · Score: 1

      Does the site get paid for this? Or is are the owners true believers on all this? Can't we go back to talking about Microsoft, or something interesting?

      --
      http://junglevision.com -- Shamus for Gameboy
    28. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Israel is criticized, and Russia does plenty of criticizing here, are we anti-Semitic? Do we criticize the Jewish ethnicity as a whole?
      No the criticism is aimed at Israel's politics and actions as a nation. And those who don't want to understand this very simple principle and become apologists for them, useful idiots like you, can go fuck themselves. You're no better than those liberal nuts that think criticism leveraged at Hillary is sexism or criticism leveraged at Obama is racism.

    29. Re:Enough Already by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Yes, it seems the advocacy groups have turned on slashdot now. Get used to the most mundane of things turned into an 'anti-trump' sh*tpost in a wall of propaganda. Sigh.

      Yes, it's no longer the Slashdot it once was when you first joined... today.

      Hi Vlad!

      I didn't just join today and I gotta say /. has gone downhill by leagues, particularly Beau and Co arrived on scene.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    30. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I used to love this site.

      Now its endless DNC crap like AGW (never an article about temperature "adjustments" or anything else against the narrative), Trump, Fake News, Trump, Russia, Trump, Trump, Fake News on Facebook, Trump. And Trump.

      Let some non-SJWs, like libertarians or (god forbid) Republicans submit some stories for a change.

    31. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you racially abuse some using

      Tyrone (black)

      Sum Yung Fuk (chinese)

      Jorge Cortez (mexican)

      Why do SJWs discriminate against some races, but not others?

    32. Re: Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the shameless war propaganda coming from the West definitely helped to consolidate Russians around Putin. What else did you expect?

    33. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Russian is a race?

      Do you really think that's a great way to excuse bigotry? Let's just lump everyone you don't like into one giant group and hate them collectively for the actions of certain individual members.

      Don't throw around the r-word unless actual racism is involved. One can treat with hostility the government for the government's actions while appreciating the people and treating each as individuals. This is what people do when they decry the actions of "the Russians."

    34. Re:Enough Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So using someone's alleged ancestry to mock someone isn't racist to you?

      Please do tell us more about how you're not a racist.

      Please tell me you're NOT this stupid.
      Now you're just arguing to try to win the argument.

  3. US fake news ecosystem targets democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Meanwhile, in the US the fake news ecosystem targets democracy by attempting to overturn the last election, because the wrong candidate won.

    Damn those voters who don't know what's best for themselves! They need white, sheltered, urban "progressives" to tell them they all RAAAAACIS NAZIS!

    1. Re: US fake news ecosystem targets democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They now want to drum for a new war against Iran. Condition the sheeple for that.

    2. Re:US fake news ecosystem targets democracy by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's good, then, that the previous administration repealed the government propaganda ban law for the current administration to allow them to fight against it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Would someone explain to me how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the "Russian Fake News Ecosystem" differs from the media in the United States, specifically NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Snapchat, Facebook, Yahoo, etc? Thanks.

    1. Re: Would someone explain to me how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just need to present the truth, that deconstructs this castle of lies from the MSM.

    2. Re: Would someone explain to me how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fix ain't fake! Trump tells me so every day!

    3. Re:Would someone explain to me how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Snapchat, Facebook, Yahoo, etc funded by the White House to specifically target the Russian population with a White House perspective of events?

  5. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't about Democrats, Republicans, Hillary or Trump. Russia didn't care about our politics, they cared about destabilizing us. They did so by making us turn against each other. Over 50 million ad impressions per week. If you're on Facebook, you saw them. And they were designed so that the people who saw them would be most likely to engage (like/comment/share). https://www.usatoday.com/story...

  6. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For context:

    3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company);
    More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
    470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
    80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
    Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.

    Half of Americans saw their content.

  7. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is all about US advocacy groups such as shareblue or media-matters spinning bullshit about Russia.

      Shareblue - which is spamming Slashdot and other sites with advocacy stories - is far more insidious and dangerous than the Russians ever were.

    I'd appreciated it if political advocates with 'English Degrees' didn't spam Nerd sites like this.

  8. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we reading political activist stories on Slashdot? Did Reddit stop believing this stuff and they have to pile the turds somewhere else?

  9. Re: Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a cute agent of the banksters and warmongers you are!

    Need to boost you Lockheed Killmart stocks, eh?

  10. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you get that from where? Usa today? cnn? Fox?

  11. because they ARE terrorists and crisis actors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are no "moderate rebels" and there are no knights in white hats. There are terrorists of varying degrees of viciousness, funded, trained and armed by the US and UK, trying to overthrow another government. The real propaganda is the US media, working on behalf of the oligarchs, OWNED by the oligarchs, who are the real power in our broken government.

    We dodged a bullet not letting Clinton take us to war with Russia, but Trump is just a patsy. If they can't get him into a war in Syria, they'll do it in Iran.

    1. Re:because they ARE terrorists and crisis actors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding of Syria is that someone wants to put a pipeline through it. The pipeline would supply energy to Europe and dent Russia's energy monopoly. So to my mind Syria is really something that mainly affects Syria Europe and Russia. That the US needs to be involved in this is something that I don't quite comprehend. Then to make things worse the US seems to be funding Al Qaida under different names. Why should I believe that the white hats are legit especially when white hats seem to be a western idiom.

    2. Re:because they ARE terrorists and crisis actors by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      There's also the Russian naval base there - Russia's only one on the Mediterranean coast, and I think that has a lot to do with Russia's involvement there, and possibly everyone else's involvement using any excuse to get their fingers in the pie.

    3. Re:because they ARE terrorists and crisis actors by hey! · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Ivan.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:because they ARE terrorists and crisis actors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure thing, Adolf.

  12. US Fake News Ecosystem targets Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    But these days they talk less about their "dossier".

    1. Re:US Fake News Ecosystem targets Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But these days they talk less about their "dossier".

      The dossier isn't going away, but it grew too large for your tiny little mind. That's why you don't see it any more.

  13. Let people decide reliability of news by hayricop · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One great revolution caused by Internet is the collapse of media monopolies. And it is a good thing. Media monopolies were used to engineer public opinion. One example is "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fake news which was publicized by almost all main stream media to justify a war with terrible consequences. I do not automatically trust any news coming from any source. I check at least one contrary argument before making my mind.

    1. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 4, Informative

      The main stream media did report that intelligence showed there were no weapons of mass destruction.

    2. Re: Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate America so much?

    3. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think about the opposite happened : the collapse of much old media (especially newspaper) led to more media concentration and thus terminal concentration of media into monopolies. But I'm viewing this from France where the press seemed to be somewhat free and it really went to shit in the late 2000s and the 2010s maybe. Even supposedly "left-wing" or left-leaning newspaper are now owned by billionaires and never question war propaganda.
      State-owned media used to be seen as providing some freedom of thought and expression (this might sound very funny to US or Anglo-Saxon readers but that's how we saw it. We had a less adversarial relation with the State, ideally we'd rather think of the State as being ours and that thing that belong to the State belong to we the people). Well it never really was that rosy ever probably, but now state media is pro-globalist, pro-war, pro-corporate the same as corporate media. I wonder if some similar descent happened to the BBC which used to have some good reputation too.

      So you say, there's the Internet. But not everyone reads the same Internet. Critically, non-Internet media is huge (print, radio, TV etc.) even if not having a collective monopoly on media anymore ; and it's very, very present on the Internet as well. Add some Internet-only media, e.g. Yahoo News which isn't very different as it will give you the same sort of "official news" as on radio, TV, newspaper and State media.
      There's social media but not everyone is on it (I'm not) and a lot seem to just use failbook as a replacement for MSN Messenger.
      What remains is independent Internet media, often slandered as fake news and "Russian agents", and it is also mostly in English language - or at least that's where you find good-enough quality easily enough and a somewhat high audience (being the most global language helps a lot). I can find stuff in my national language but it is often not very reputable or tainted by the far right (or far left of a not very good quality). At the least there's a relative dearth of widely distributed views from academics and personalities that go against mainstream propaganda.

    4. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One example is "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fake news which was publicized by almost all main stream media

      I remember it being all over the news that that was a fake claim by the government. it seems you've fallen into the "fake news" trap by believing fake claims about the media.

      I check at least one contrary argument before making my mind.

      Not every story has two sides.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are witnessing the last gasps of the old Post war propaganda complex as it struggles to understand why it's 70 year old successful formula no longer works.
      It no longer works because close to 100% of politically aware individuals are one click away from their own sources of facts, news, context, history, and basic information. Even the simplest details -- where a place is, who a people are, a smattering of modern political history or context, the last war fought -- is enough to dispel a year's worth of shallow propaganda.
      The struggle to sell false consensus has become increasingly desperate. The machine doubles down because it has no other choice. It's operators cannot understand what has changed or why. When a child of ten can outmatch their ownknowledge in half an hour, and find out exactly what they are lying about an hour after that.

      The old media machine will die. It must. The internet has killed its power to enforce consensus. The shallow cynicism of its culture cannot sustain the intellectual rigour needed to convince the now only mildly informed and factually empowered citizenry.
      Whether it dies utterly, or adapts itself to the new, factually empowered population, is a question yet to be answered. Will the serpent die, or will its venom only become the deadlier?
      But in either outcome, the old model of constructing truths via newspaper headline is utterly dead. We have never been at war with East-Asia.

    6. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The old media machine will die. It must. The internet has killed its power to enforce consensus.

      It never had such a power, as there have always been opposing views in the MSM.

    7. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the mainstream media did report that there was no evidence. Maybe not all of them did, some certainly played their role as apologists for Bush, Obama or whatever their names were at the time, but those that didn't agree with the administration of that time certainly did report on it.
      You see, Western media is still quite diverse in their position and they often criticize their government. Why? Because they're not state funded like RT or Sputnik but privately funded and pursue their private interest, which are primarily making money now and making money in the future. Sure, maybe every single one of them is biased if you look at them in an isolated way, but as a sum you still get a lot of perspectives on several issues.

      So one question you should ask yourself here and think about it long and hard: Why is it when Western privately media happens to agree on something once in a while it must be a collective lie and when Russian state funded media reports something different it must be the truth? Because that's certainly how your position here looks like.

    8. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yes. I believe the problems were Colin Powell and The Decider.

    9. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad that coverage didn't hold a candle to the corporate media drumbeat that led to the war. In any case, the reporting you are referring to took place long after it was over.

    10. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link sources to mainstream media that called out the "fake claim by the government". And make sure these sources are dated BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.

    11. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I check at least one contrary argument before making my mind.

      Would you allow flat Earthers on a geography show? Should you allow moon landing deniers on an astronomy show?

    12. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      Not every story has two sides.

      Every story has two sides, but not every side is equally true.
      And it's almost never the case that "X this, but Y said that, the truth is somewhere in between."

  14. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 0

    If you're trying to say I'm related to Shareblue (whatever the hell that is), stop being an AC and login. Software developer for past 12. How about you?

  15. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    who gave the software developers right to vote in the first place? It is like trusting a monkey to play with a hand grenade.

  16. like nuns at an abortion clinic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf... cease fire stand down, there are mothers & children in every town.. thanks again

  17. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by DejaBu · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, just real Nerds here who are tired of being spammed by (as another poster put it) paid DNC political shills (with 'English or Sociology Degrees') spamming Slashdot. They should [f'go] off to a different site. Badly spamming sites is like what American voters saw the MSM do in the 2016 election. Upshot is, people will stop voting DNC as they're tired of this shit, and vote for their opposition. 1000 points for shooting oneself in the foot.

  18. They've got their fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have ours. If Russian fake news is attacking these white helmets and our fake news is hailing them as heroes, then its very unlikely these white helmets are completely neutral in this conflict. Why else would two super powers who never cared about humanitarianism before have such strong opinions about this one group.

  19. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 0

    Your English needs work. Also, if that's how you feel about software developers, you're on the wrong news site.

  20. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Here are the ads the the Russians ran.

    I was amazed that they worked. The only explanation is that the people who were affected by those ads were so misinformed that they believed them. And not only misinformed but also unwilling to fact check making them doubly stupid.

    You can only blame Clinton for so much - and much of the hate towards her was based on bullshit.

    And I think it's idiotic that the Republican super pacs ran and ad stating that Clinton would bring all this controversy and baggage into the Whitehouse when Trump is doing that ten fold.

    From what I'm seeing and based on having lived through a Clinton Presidency, Trump is making Bill look like an amateur when it comes to fucking up the Presidency.

    1. Re:Really? by DejaBu · · Score: 0

      'Screwing up the presidency?' Chortle. "That's like, totally your opinion man." Cutting taxes, slashing regulations, renegotiating deals, bringing peace to Korea which every other career politician tried failed, doubling down on attacks to beat ISIS, lowest unempoyment in 16+ years etc and actually prioritising average Americans over illegals or screaming SJWs. He's been fulfilling his campaign promises, my takeaway from this is to stop giving career politicians/beaurocrats the top job - give it to 'actual do-ers'.

    2. Re:Really? by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      'Screwing up the presidency?' Chortle. "That's like, totally your opinion man."

      Cutting taxes

      On corportations; screw the average citizen.

      slashing regulations

      On corportations; screw the average citizen.

      renegotiating deals

      Because representing something other than yourself and keeping promises is for suckers -- the man never met an agreement that he wouldn't break the moment that it was to his personal advantage.

      bringing peace to Korea which every other career politician tried failed

      and never met a situation that he wouldn't claim credit for after carefully ensuring that he didn't invest anything until it was a certain win.

      President Moon Jae-in is the one bringing peace to Korea.

      doubling down on attacks to beat ISIS

      Fake news, literally.

      lowest unempoyment in 16+ years etc

      But the unemployment rate is a fraud -- Trump said so himself. There's "massive unemployment" that's not reflected in the unemployment rate. Obviously he's only continued the fraud... The difference between 4.8% and 3.9% is almost nothing.

      and actually prioritising average Americans over illegals or screaming SJWs.

      Lip service. See the tax cut.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Screwing up the presidency?' Chortle. "That's like, totally your opinion man."

      Cutting taxes, slashing regulations, renegotiating deals, bringing peace to Korea which every other career politician tried failed, doubling down on attacks to beat ISIS, lowest unempoyment in 16+ years etc and actually prioritising average Americans over illegals or screaming SJWs.

      He's been fulfilling his campaign promises, my takeaway from this is to stop giving career politicians/beaurocrats the top job - give it to 'actual do-ers'.

      I bet you think you're really informed and clever stringing bumper sticker talking points together.

      That's how the establishment wins - like Trump - making the little people think they're smart and in control.

      Kim Jong-Un played Trump like the buffoon he is

      My counties trout stream has been buried by coal miners thanks to Trump's elimination of regulations.

      And everything else re just because of the business cycle.

      Illegal immigration is a bullshit distraction issue. BTW, Obama did more in that regard.

      You sir, are a perfect example of the misinformed public that is so easily manipulated. And if you think Trump is different, you are pretty stupid.

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

      Heil Hillary! The Nazis were leftists too, not alt-right or neo-conservatives or any of that other boolshiat fake American news keeps claiming. Thank God we have RT to give us the real scoop. AE911Truth org

    5. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't count your chickens yet on Korean peace. North Korea has, for decades, made grand gestures (although never this big) in exchange for something they need. Remember when, under Clinton, they agreed to not develop nuclear capabilities in exchange for food? How did that work out? Remember when, under Bush, they made a huge public spectacle of blowing up their research reactor in exchange for food? How did that work out? Why do you think this time will be any different? They'll blow up their test site, get some food, and continue as they have. We fall for it every time and I doubt Mr. Trump has the experience to negotiate it so this won't happen again. Don't forget that to North Korea denuclearization means getting the US out of Korea. So maybe it's not food this time, maybe it's getting our boys out of their backyard. Something Mr. Trump would love to do because South Korea isn't paying us enough. And when they conquer one of our allies and begin threatening another in 2 years, our response will be either limp wristed or extremely expensive. Make no mistake, the one in control right now is Kim, not Trump.

    6. Re: Really? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I was amazed that they worked. The only explanation is that the people who were affected by those ads were so misinformed that they believed them. And not only misinformed but also unwilling to fact check making them doubly stupid.

      That's how political propaganda works. There's very little benefit to targeting sophisticated, educated, thoughtful people, since they make up a relatively insignificant percentage of the populace and are much harder to convince. Instead you target the lowest common denominator, which massively increases your support with very little effort.

  21. The Syrian Rebels are ISIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Fuck the White Helmets, and all aid organizations trying to help them topple Syria. The last thing we need is yet more refugees pouring in to Europe.

    1. Re:The Syrian Rebels are ISIS by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The white helmets (brown bodies, white heads and one eye focused on raping a country) were only providing limited rescue efforts to terrorist groups as indicated by all interviews from the regions where they were, indicated they did nothing what so ever for the general public, except hoard any emergency rations supplied by external sources and selling them on the black market. It seems highly likely that most of the White Helmet funding was stolen by the contractor middle men, otherwise please fucking explain how they spent that money http://21stcenturywire.com/201... $123 million. We know where most of the money went, into the hands of contractors and it never left there. How about just for shits and giggles they do a please explain where the money went, seems like really, really fucking expensive helmets and overalls, they were volunteers right, so a million for helmets and overalls and $122 million to administer, right, surely not, so how about an audit of Mayday Rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to find where the money went actually.

      So a fake news story about fake news story about fake news, lets be clear or is that as muddy as possible. Hey you know what, try going to Syria and talking to all the people they spent $123 million rescuing, should be easing, like tens of thousands of them, yet they can not seem to find any. Why the fake fake news story because audits and fraud and audits seem to be the focus of the moment and you just know the majority was syphoned off by contractors.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  22. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by DRJlaw · · Score: 0

    This is all about US advocacy groups such as shareblue or media-matters spinning bullshit about Russia.

    Hi Vlad!

  23. And it's the fault of the MSM by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For context:
    3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company);
    More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
    470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
    80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
    Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.
    Half of Americans saw their content.

    I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.

    There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.

    During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.

    Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.

    Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?

    You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.

    You used to be able to trust polling results: the polling companies made it their business to be accurate. Even now polls that report inconvenient truths are being suppressed.

    If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.

    (Of note: CNN's ratings are down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)

    1. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more.

      Don't be stupid.

      Even now polls that report inconvenient truths are being suppressed [breitbart.com]

      Wow. Complaining about a lack of "trusted news authority" and then citing breitbart.com. That's stupid squared.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy. Here comes Slashdot's biggest dipshit to tell us once again that facts don't count because he doesn't like the source that they came from. Just like every Liberal that hates debate or reasoning, the answer is "agree with me or shut up". You couldn't possibly be a bigger sack of lying crap.

    3. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      truths are being suppressed.[breitbart.com]

      I love how you complain about the lack of trust in the "MSM" and how they post factually incorrect statements by linking to a place which does that way more and has a way worse record on corrections.

      If you're taking Breitbart's word on, well, anything then you are very much part of the problem.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I won't bury the lede: You're attempting to blame a right-wing boogey man for the hostile acts of a foreign power.

      I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.

      There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.

      You are blaming the MSM for not being all things to all people. There is no universally trusted news authority because people seek out sources that confirm their preconceptions. Also, a foreign power released propaganda using the "emotional engagement" that you decry below to make people trust the media less.

      During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.

      Donald Trump is unfit to be president. It isn't a partisan issue (see the many "never Trumper" conservatives), any more than saying shit stinks.

      Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.

      Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?

      I would prefer infallible news sources. At least MSNBC and CNN post retractions when they are wrong. The trolls and bots and Sean Hannity don't.

      You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.

      See above.

      Even now polls that report inconvenient truths [Breitbart link] are being suppressed.

      Not every outlier poll deserves 15 minutes of fame. Also, I'll note the irony of pivoting from a breitbart story to ...

      If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.

      (Of note: CNN's ratings are [different breitbart link] down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)

      Corporations do not have a fiduciary obligation to make money (but it is a common misconception). Pushing a political agenda has been a very good strategy for some news outlets. "Simply reporting what happened" is a riskier game, and companies that do that offer suffer in the ratings.

    5. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okie faggot you are a moron.

    6. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's whataboutism for you. Too bad it can work both ways.

    7. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by gbjbaanb · · Score: 0

      Breitbart has my support because everything the run (which may be as biased as the MSM, only in the opposite direction) comes with links and references.

      when they do make a mistake, no matter how slight, the opposition such as the Guardian jumps all over them. I recall they ran one about some trouble outside a cathedral. "OMG" shouted the Graun, "fake news!!!!". Turned out the cathedral was a church, so you can see how much they've tried to find fault.

    8. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you look at the links in Russian tweets, after RT.com you find that Brietbart is by far the most popular.

      Brietbart, the site that re-publishes thinly veiled Infowars stories.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like, you could try some non-US media sources. Like BBC. They are less partisan than cnn or fox

      Or if you dare, you could try reading nrc.nl or vk.nl with Google translate. I find them much less 'shouty'

    10. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stupid in thinking that all news media is driven by greed/catering and/or ideology/propaganda.

      Denying ideology IS ideology.

      Perception is subjective. Its true that there are 50 shades of grey, but in general that's what it is.

      There is science dealing objectively with simple systems, but we already know everything that is possible about these, what is left is irreducible systems like human society, where scientific method is limited. All we have is biased data collection.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stupid in thinking that all news media is driven by greed/catering and/or ideology/propaganda.

      No, the stupid part is believing that a news outlet driven by greed cannot be trusted, or that a propaganda site can.

      There is no equivalence between real news sources and Breitbart. None. They exist in different realms, for different purposes. The notion that journalists can't be trusted is one that has been carefully curated by people who benefit from you believing that truth cannot exist if it indicates a point of view.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The notion that journalists can't be trusted arose directly from the observation that the quality of their reporting has been in decline for a long time, and has declined massively since the advent of the "24 hour news cycle". This has been going on for a long time. Christopher Hitchens once said that he watches the news, not in order to know what's going on in the world, but rather in order to know what other people think is going on in the world. That's an accurate assessment of my take on it as well.

      Are the mainstream outlets more accurate and trustworthy than Breitbart? Sure, in most cases they are. But only marginally so. If you trust them unreservedly while rejecting everything you see on breitbart you are just as much of a fool as those who dismiss them wholecloth while fawning over breitbart.

    13. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, the BBC, the station that wouldn't shut up about RUSSIAN POISON NERVE AGENTS even though there's still no bloody proof.

      Don't get me wrong, I remember a time when the BBC was ethical, factual and trustworthy. Hell, CNN was once seen that way, too. These days, however, journalism is dead. It died when investigative journalism died.

      Just look at this very place, spewing political propaganda on a tech news site. How is this tech news? The only tangentally-relevant thing I can see is that the article mentioned websites. Bit of a reach, there.

    14. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The notion that journalists can't be trusted arose directly from the observation...

      No, it didn't. That's just the legend, via the people who are threatened by an informed populace. The supposed "trusted media" of the past is really a re-imagining of what was really just a media invested in the status quo. There have always been people who would benefit from an all-out assault on truth. We watched it happen in other countries and now a consortium of foreign and corrupt domestic entities have unleashed it here. Fortunately, it seems that Donald Trump will be both the apotheosis and the demise of this phenomenon, as you can see by how the cries of "fake news!" are becoming less effective, plus the utter transparency of state-run media outlets like Fox News.

      People aren't buying any more. That's why CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and Washington Post have all seen increases in viewership and revenue as the Trump presidency has worn on. The "fake news" movement has jumped the shark.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >No, the stupid part is believing that a news outlet driven by greed cannot be trusted, or that a propaganda site can

      I need an actual quote that says that.

      Nobody "trusts" nothing. People who you think "trust" Breitbart are just brainwashing themselves. It's not "trust", it's ideological alignment.

      From the other hand people who "trust" CNN, _are_ mostly brainwashed liberal imbeciles confused by CNN having a "mainstream" status. Breitbart does not have that, so nobody expects "trust".

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  24. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by DRJlaw · · Score: 0

    No, just real Nerds here who are tired of being spammed by (as another poster put it) paid DNC political shills (with 'English or Sociology Degrees') spamming Slashdot.

    "No true Scotsman" fallacy. There are plenty of engineers, scientists, and nerds that are unpaid democrat party voters expressing their opinions. Their posts are not spam merely beause you disagree with them.

    They should [f'go] off to a different site.

    No, they should stay here if they wish. Nobody's surrendering this site to you.

    Upshot is, people will stop voting DNC as they're tired of this shit, and vote for their opposition. 1000 points for shooting oneself in the foot.

    You really think that 2016-18 has stengthened republican prospects further? Wishful thinking.

    Winter is coming... November 6, 2018.

  25. They 'roiled' the -post- election by RandomFactor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In activity reminiscent of the disinformation campaigns that roiled the U.S. Presidential election in 2016

    [At the cost of some karma....]

    I looked through about 100 of the Facebook ads in the dump and got bored. They were targeted at anything polarizing. Presumably later ones were around the two candidates, but I didn't see it.

    The early ones were all inciting LGBTxxx, Black Racist, White Racist, Pro/Anti Immigration, Anti-Police passions. Most of the ads had almost no exposure receiving on the order of 0-10 clicks and a few dozen views, although a few received over 1k views and dozens of clicks.

    Seems to be a long running low level propaganda operation aimed at dividing the US into camps/sowing dissent/keeping wounds open. Considering the polarization in the country, it could well be working in the long run, but I don't think we can honestly blame our woes on external actors.

    It would be more accurate to state that the -reaction- to the disinformation campaigns roiled the post election year.

    Definitely worth seeing if anything can be done about them because of the long term damage they are designed to do, but not significant in a single election. I am not terribly optimistic about countermeasures however, Russia will just get a bit better at hiding their connection to ads and everything will continue on as it has.

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
    1. Re:They 'roiled' the -post- election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were laughably bad. Some of them seemed like jokes. I know of only one person who would admit to ever seeing any of them, and he thought it was a joke (one of the Satan ones).

      I was in the thick of the Bernie/Clinton battle, and I don't remember seeing any of them. Facebook has a tool that will tell you if you interacted with any of the known Russian ads, and it says I didn't.

    2. Re:They 'roiled' the -post- election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must be still bitter about transporting Lenin into Russia from Paris. That was surely one of the most successful propaganda operations in the recent history.

    3. Re:They 'roiled' the -post- election by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am not terribly optimistic about countermeasures however, Russia will just get a bit better at hiding their connection to ads and everything will continue on as it has.

      It's actually pretty easy to track this stuff down when we care because financial activity leaves signs. That's why Trump wants us to stop looking; there is evidence, and it will be found. Ultimately, someone has to pay a bunch of money to make this stuff happen, and there are records of those payments. This is why it's important to require that someone use identification when placing political advertisements. Then you can track the action back to its source, and account for the expenditure of money (about which there are laws.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:They 'roiled' the -post- election by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      TFA says under the "more info" link that the ads were seen by over 11 million Americans.

      https://democrats-intelligence...

      Keep in mind that's just the ads, which were a very small part of their efforts. The latest stats I could find show they had 1000 people working on this stuff, much of it around fake social media accounts, memes and trolling.

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

      I really can't believe that anyone takes this seriously. If Putin coordinated this "effort" at manipulating our "democracy"/s then he is both impotent and stupid. This is only an issue because corporate owned Democrats would rather continue to sell out the working class in order to keep the donations flowing. I hope they keep losing until they become a true left wing party (or until a real left party takes their place).

    6. Re:They 'roiled' the -post- election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both political parties hate each other more than ever as it appears. You blame the Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans. Both generates even more hate from the other and so forth. Looks to me like it worked exceptionally well. Hence it makes Putin look rather smart IF he's behind all of this. Because in the end we can't trace it back to him with certainty.
      'Selling out' is simply something that can happen anywhere in capitalism, because guess what? Making money is usually so important that morals on all sides may become secondary, because the love for money and hate for the opposition are more important. Polarizing news sell, no matter who publishes them. Those who are on the same page as the news will be furious about the 'truths' they uncover and those opposed are furious about the 'lies'. In the end it gets shared by all and news outlets are making tons of clicks which translates into money for them.

      But useful idiots like you (of course there's plenty of equivalents on the Democrat side) rather continue to blame the opposition than realizing that you both are being screwed with, most likely by a 3rd party that can only benefit from the discordance among you.

    7. Re:They 'roiled' the -post- election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First of all, you know nothing about me. And the reason that I single out Democrats is that they CLAIM to support the poor. I expect dastardly shit from Republicans, so there's no need to mention them. The identity of the 3rd party that you are referring to is obvious, and they are all billionaires. I blame the rich and the politicians that they own, Republican or Democrat. Putin is the least of our worries. The hate/division in this country started long before Russiagate nonsense. Dividing the populace on as many issues as possible is a tactic by those with power so that they can maintain their hold on power. The only division that should matter is class. The rich fear working class solidarity more than anything and will use any issue that they can to limit class consciousness and prevent a united working class.

    8. Re: They 'roiled' the -post- election by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      How's that different from any tabloid media? Reader explotation for nefarious purposes. Practically any user content driven popular website without active and skillful moderation becomes a tabloid of fake news 0-60 in 3 sec.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  26. White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by poity · · Score: 0

    Of course US will say they're the good guys and Russia will say they're the bad guys. Who is right? There are no independent journalists on the ground. You will never know.

    Faith is all you have to go on.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by quonset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course US will say they're the good guys and Russia will say they're the bad guys. Who is right? There are no independent journalists on the ground. You will never know.

      Faith is all you have to go on.

      Holy shit! You Russian trolls are really losing it. Your blatant, "But who knows what's real?" is your last, pathetic, desperate attempt to say something, anything, to make it seem there is no truth to the situation.

      The fact is the white helmets are like the Red Cross. Neutral people whose sole job is rescue people after Russia bombs a hospital or civilians in bread lines. To claim otherwise is simply the latest propaganda to come out of your St. Petersburg location.

      Now scurry along and get your bottle of vodka. Vlad will be proud of you for putting out another lie. It's all Russia is good for.

    2. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course US will say they're the good guys and Russia will say they're the bad guys. Who is right? There are no independent journalists on the ground. You will never know.

      Faith is all you have to go on.

      The truth is ususally far more consistent than the pack of lies that is used for propaganda.

    3. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit! You Russian trolls are really losing it. Your blatant, "But who knows what's real?" is your last, pathetic, desperate attempt to say something, anything, to make it seem there is no truth to the situation.

      The fact is the white helmets are like the Red Cross. Neutral people whose sole job is rescue people after Russia bombs a hospital or civilians in bread lines. To claim otherwise is simply the latest propaganda to come out of your St. Petersburg location.

      Now scurry along and get your bottle of vodka. Vlad will be proud of you for putting out another lie. It's all Russia is good for.

      If they are neutral why aren't they rescuing people after the US bombs a hospital or civilians in bread lines?

      Oh right, they aren't neutral, they support the terrorist side of the Syrian civil war.

    4. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      If the white helmets are like the Red Cross, then why do they operate only in regions under jihadist control? Why don't they help the people who are the victims of those jihadists?

      Yeah, yeah, I know, you will now say I'm a Russian bot.

    5. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      If the white helmets are like the Red Cross, then why do they operate only in regions under jihadist control? Why don't they help the people who are the victims of those jihadists?

      Something about Assad and ISIS shooting everyone who isn't absolutely on their side.

      Yeah, yeah, I know, you will now say I'm a Russian bot.

      You keep trotting this out like some kind of talisman. You're not Vlad, or a Russian bot. You're an idiot.

    6. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the white helmets are so great, why does no one in the liberated cities ever have anything good to say?
      Why is there headquarters in the same building as ISIS?

    7. Re: White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are no independent journalists on the ground in rebel-held syria because al-qaeda and other us-funded moderate groups killed or kidnapped enough of them that the rest fled

    8. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by quonset · · Score: 1

      If they are neutral why aren't they rescuing people after the US bombs a hospital or civilians in bread lines?

      Oh right, they aren't neutral, they support the terrorist side of the Syrian civil war.

      Because the U.S. isn't bombing hospitals or bread lines in Syria so there's no need for the white helmets to do anything.

      But keep up the lies. All you're doing is proving who you are. You Russians are as stupid as you are naive.

    9. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by quonset · · Score: 1

      If the white helmets are so great, why does no one in the liberated cities ever have anything good to say?
      Why is there headquarters in the same building as ISIS?

      Keep up the lies. The people the white helmets rescue are very grateful because they know if it were Assad's army the people would be killed on the spot. Oh look, your lie about the white helmetsA being associate with terrorists is false. How odd.

      Oh look, an article describing how Russia deliberately bombs these rescuers so they can't help the people being killed.

      Tell us again who the terrorists are? The ones who are trying to help people lead a better life or those who deliberately target civilians and rescuers? Go home comrade, you're too drunk, and stupid, to come up with anything original.

    10. Re: White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by poity · · Score: 1

      lol 4million+ user id calling me a shill

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    11. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Technically there is a middle ground. So UK contractors working with corrupt elements in the UK government, came up with the scheme to create that charity fraud. No accountability, no real records and millions from UK tax payers syphoned off and then the big payoff US funds and millions more scammed. The governments funding it think it is real but they whole thing is a big ole scam, a video charade to scam money out of the tax payer purse. This being the real reason for the failure of performance on the ground versus the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars spent. The counter claim it was entirely a propaganda scheme but why spend over a hundred million dollars on an empty scam, makes no sense. So they believe it is 'er' cough, cough they believed it was true, now not so much. Middle ground seems very likely true, largely a scam to steal over one hundred million dollars, with a just a few million spent on creating the illusion so that UK contractors together with corrupt elements of the UK government could fill their pockets with terrors wars booty, just that the US government wasn't in on the scam because they were the ones being scammed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The White Helmets have been proven to being ISIS members. The White Helmets have been proven to be paid for by MI6.

    13. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White Helmets are the guys who faked the recent gas attack. You are utterly retarded and repeating the stupidest line of propaganda imaginable.

    14. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling someone you disagree with a Russian troll makes you look like one of those "libtards" or "alt-righters".
      It gives no credibility to anything that comes after, just like this post that is claiming all the "self described "alternative" news" are falling in the hands of fake news, russian trolls.

    15. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      The White Helmets have been proven to being ISIS members. The White Helmets have been proven to be paid for by MI6.

      Dude, you forgot your 9/11 truther tagline you usually include.

    16. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like you american trolls better. You seem to not care that you have no evidence or facts to back you up. Keep going James. Have a Gatorade, it's got electrolytes!

  27. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by quantaman · · Score: 2

    Even if you aren't a ShareBlue paid shill, you unfortunately are propagating their ideas. You should really consider signing up with them and picking up a paycheck for doing nothing more than posting your views on your 12 year old account. They pay extra for that kind of authenticity. ShareBlue is the flagship of progressive anti Trump opposition and if you're not on board with them, you should be. You're just working for free, which makes you a sucker. :(

    Lets back up a little.

    The OP expressed a very common and valid viewpoint.

    The AC replied accusing the OP of being a member of a policial advocacy group, seemingly Shareblue, and made a fairly strong implication that the OP was astroturfing.

    The OP denied the ridiculous charges.

    And now you jump in and suggest... I don't even understand what your argument actually is. That the OP is no longer supposed to advocate for their beliefs because there exists a progressive news site, that you accuse of astroturfing?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  28. So they're like the mainsteam media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a tight network of websites sharing nearly identical content" pretty accurately describes modern journalism. One site comes up with an opinion article and all those politically aligned news outlets copy & paste it over and over. Suddenly what started as "an anonymous source familiar with the hair color of people involved" becomes a well-sourced "fact".

    I guess it's easier to point at the other side of the world instead of looking at your own doorstep.

  29. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Huckleberry, don't forget to bring your evidence to court. Sorry Huck

  30. insanity or troll ? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every once in a while, a story comes up on /. that makes me question the authors sanity. This is one of them.

    There is plenty of reason to doubt the neutrality and motives of the White Helmets, outside of and being shared around long before any Russian news stories. There are plenty of pictures where the same people are seen as victims in different locations, and the curious fact that the White Helmets are routinely at the scene immediately and seemingly active exclusively in islamist-controlled territory.

    So what is this story? FUD? Did too many questionable details about these guys surface recently?

    From an outside perspective, two things seem to be obvious: One, the White Helmets are doing humanitarian work and providing emergency services to civilian victims in a war zone. Two, they are clearly aligned with one of the sides in this conflict.

    Neither of these diminishes the importance of the other.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:insanity or troll ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo, they probably rescued hundreds or even thousands of people in collapsed buildings over the years, on the other hand they clearly seem to have faked, staged the chemical attack scene in April 2018 - no evidence whatsoever of use of chemical weapons, credible explanation that children with breathing trouble were exposed to smoke and dust, and the Russians warned a few days before, again, that a staged chemical attack was going to take place.

      I guess you might decide to get a hiking vacation in some place like Afghanistan or tribal zones of Pakistan, get shot by a stray bullet and be rescued and cared for by exactly the type of long-bearded people that have a really bad press. Or you might have visited the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin, April 1945 and eaten cake with Adolf. Many things are possible lol.

    2. Re:insanity or troll ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the White Helmets are routinely at the scene immediately and seemingly active exclusively in islamist-controlled territory.

      You'd think "researchers at University of Washington and Harvard" would be able to use internet search and corroborate evidence because we already know exactly who funds the white helmets. They're either not very good researchers or it is they that are pushing "fake news".

    3. Re:insanity or troll ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two, they are clearly aligned with one of the sides in this conflict.

      This makes them automatically as much as a target as a field medic is. Since this is about civilian lives, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion so casually.

    4. Re:insanity or troll ? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      the White Helmets are routinely at the scene immediately and seemingly active exclusively in islamist-controlled territory.

      Only if you divide Syria in three: Assad, the Kurds and everyone else are Islamists. Now Assad has an army and medics, the Kurds has the Peshmerga and medics, the rest have... what? Not that I've ever seen any evidence that the White Helmets were allowed to work under ISIS, they didn't tolerate anybody. So they've worked in the areas controlled by "other" rebel groups, which is undoubtedly a mixed bunch but hardly proof of foul play. Are they neutral? Hell no, it's basically "Assad is killing us please help!" which is probably true from the civilian perspective whether or not they're collaborating with anybody. Rebels attack Assad, Assad attacks rebels, civilians die. Is it one-sided? Yes. But Assad is free to tell the other side of the story...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:insanity or troll ? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is how Russia works. A mixture of truth and misinformation, sowing doubt and uncertainty everywhere. People start to distrust everything, especially the media that is the only source of information about these things (since most people can't go to Syria to verify for themselves).

      That opens up opportunities for post-truth politics. That's where we are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:insanity or troll ? by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely SPOT ON!

    7. Re:insanity or troll ? by Tom · · Score: 2

      I repeat: This isn't news, it's olds. I've seen the White Helmets being doubted publicly for well over a year, maybe two. Sometimes even in mainstream media.

      That they are part of the ISIS propaganda efforts is plain as day. The only question remaining is how strongly they are aligned with Daesh, if they are a pure propaganda tool created for this purpose or a humanitarian organisation being used additionally for propaganda, or somewhere inbetween.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:insanity or troll ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      And who funds them affects what, exactly?

      I am from Germany. The government there also funds islamist mosques where Jihad is preached (oops, had to make a critical investigation after journalists went there with someone who actually speaks arabic and brought that to light). They also sell tanks to Turkey recently, knowing those will be used in the war against the Kurds. And the guy who drove that truck into the christmas market in Berlin? He was not only on the government watchlist of potential terrorists, but even considered the most likely threat. Why he was able to conduct this attack at all is the subject of an ongoing investigation.

      So at least as far as the one country I know very well is concerned: That they fund someone doesn't mean that someone is clean.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:insanity or troll ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Only if you divide Syria in three: Assad, the Kurds and everyone else are Islamists.

      That is actually more or less the case, is it not? All of the two dozen or so named rebel groups have at various times allied with either Daesh or Al Qaida (Jabhat Fateh Al Sham).

      Not that I've ever seen any evidence that the White Helmets were allowed to work under ISIS, they didn't tolerate anybody.

      They do seem to stay away from ISIS territory. I do remember seing a video where POWs were executed by ISIS and then taken away by White Helmets, but I might misremember the details.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:insanity or troll ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry kid, but you've fallen for the right wing propaganda. If I had a nickel for everytime someone claims to "know Arabic" and claims that mosques are "preaching jihad" I could've funded ISIS myself to actually do what you pretend they're doing.

      Just because your imagination is overactive doesn't mean you should listen to it. if you want to watch out for credible threats, keep an eye on the far right white nationalists. They have killed at least 10x more people in the past year than fundamental muslims have in the past 20, easily.

    11. Re:insanity or troll ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Sorry idiot, but I happen to know my country and you obviously don't. This is not right-wing newspapers, some of these things were brought to light by either mainstream press (some of it leaning more left than right) or by official parliamentary investigation panels.

      They have killed at least 10x more people in the past year than fundamental muslims have in the past 20, easily.

      Depends on when exactly you pick your timeline, namely if you include major events or not, but yes the right-wing extremists are responsible for deaths as well.

      Something that amazes me to no end again and again is that people like you can't seem to comprehend the idea that there might be multiple bad guys in the world. The fact that X's opposite is evil does not mean that X is not evil as well.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  31. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They did so by making us turn against each other.

    As if you needed any help in that area.

    What is turning people against each other is the doctrine of total competition that neo-liberalism has brought to every aspect of modern life. It used to be limited to sports and the workspace and even there we had rules of fair play.

    During the cold war, there was a balance between capitalism and socialism in most western countries, because it was understood that releasing the full barrage of unrestricted capitalism on people would make them turn towards communism. After communism (rightfully) fell, that balance wasn't necessary any longer.

    Really, the biggest thing Russia ever did to regular Americans was crumbling down and dropping communism. The ripple effect of that is still showing itself today with every year the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer while employee rights get demolished, regulations abandoned, any echos of the New Deal or similar compromises in other western countries are lost and the future of future generations is sold for the benefit of next quarters profits.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  32. Re: Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably not. Your hyperbole is pointless.

    He's likely just someone who trusts pretty people with important jobs...like the talking heads he sees on TV. Nothing underhanded, just too much trust in charismatic talking heads, and an inability to connect who they are being paid by with what comes out of their mouths.

  33. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, just real Nerds here who are tired of being spammed by (as another poster put it) paid DNC political shills (with 'English or Sociology Degrees') spamming Slashdot. They should [f'go] off to a different site.

    "just real Nerds" who only created their Slashdot account today are complaining about spammers.

    The Internet Research Agency must be having a hard time hiring good people.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  34. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by DejaBu · · Score: 1

    I've been reading this site for years, writing as AC on and off for more than a decade. Joined slash today as I was annoyed at what I can see going on here. I urge other ACs to do the same. Anyway, that's me.

  35. Not surprising at all by quonset · · Score: 1

    These are the same organizations who, when Russia deliberately bombs hospitals or civilians standing in bread lines in Syria, claim "terrorists" were targeted. And then, when the white helmets show up to do their work, Russia bombs them again so pictures and news of the deliberate attacks will be suppressed.

    These are the same organizations who reported on the killing of a 10-year old girl in Eastern Ukraine when the Ukrainian military and volunteers were fighting the Russian invasion in 2015. The claim was she was killed outright in an artillery attack.

    Only problem, the girl never existed. It was the literal embodiment of fake news. In fact, when a BBC news crew tracked down some of the Russian news teams who reported on the "incident", they asked why the Russians reported the fake news. On camera one guy said the girl never existed while another guy said, "We had to broadcast it."

    1. Re:Not surprising at all by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Oh geez. Why are you crying a river over a fake reporting on a one dead girl? Remember how the day before the Syrian finally expelled the Al-Queda affiliates ("moderate rebels" in the western-speak) from East Aleppo the entire western media exploded about how 83 charred and tortured bodies of the rebels were allegedly seen in East Aleppo. Respectable, established news outlets like BBC, CNN, etc all picked up this story and run with it. And then silence the next day. Nobody followed it up. Nobody retracted it. Talk about the western fake news.

      Also the western news media hardly ever reports how the western coalition bombs civilians in ISIS-held areas. For example, by most accounts, the battle of Mosul was a bloodbath and Americans bombed civilians there for hours, resulting in hundreds of dead, before saying "oops". In fall of 2015, US bombed the SAA forces in Deir-ez zor, which was completely surrounded by ISIS forces for years, for hours, killing near a hundred SAA fighters, resulting the SAA positions in Deir-ez zor airport split from the main city by ISIS, and then the coalition said "oops". For some reason, the western media reports none of that although they always love to report a heart-warming story about the US-UK-Turkish funded "white helmets", the first responders who for some reason choose to operate only in jihadist infested areas.

  36. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Who is saying that Putin is a nice guy? He's a dictator. That doesn't change the fact that the US is causing far more trouble on the global stage.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  37. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I've been reading this site for years, writing as AC on and off for more than a decade. Joined slash today as I was annoyed at what I can see going on here.

    That's what they all say.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  38. The source is obvious by Zorpheus · · Score: 2

    I don't know why the ones who write the article talk about some kind of secret network.
    These stories are on Russia today and Sputnik since weeks. These are known Russian state websites.
    The White helmets are portrayed as the ones who fabricated the proof for the chemical attacks. I don't know if anyone has a proof of what is true or not.

  39. THE WHITE HEALENTS ARE SUPERHEROES by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Given that they can walk through areas that have just been hit by a sarin gas, a lethal neural toxin, wearing nothing more than a cheap dusk mask and no gloves and not immediately be incapacitated or otherwise or die.

    Yup, that makes perfect sense.

  40. "The news" isn't really a business by anyaristow · · Score: 2

    CNN's ratings are down 20%...I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests.

    You have to stop thinking about "the news" as a business. I have an article that will help:

    Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos signed the $250 million Washington Post deal with no due diligence

    The objective isn't to earn money selling advertising, needing viewership/readership to accomplish that. The objective is to dictate what people think about...everything. It's mind control, not business. It has a financial payoff, but it's not as direct as subscriber numbers or advertising revenue.

  41. Re:US fake news = FOX NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Fox News, the fake news your faggot ass craves.

  42. google the CNN reporter sniffing sarin backpack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google the CNN reporter sniffing a backpack she suspects has sarin on it. It's a hoot.

  43. Erm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when are we gonna look into CNN and the likes doing the same thing?

  44. White Helmets are not "human rights workers" by guacamole · · Score: 3

    Please get the facts straight.

    The White Helmets are US-UK-Turkish funded emergency first responders who seem to do their work only in jihadist infested rebel areas in Western Syria (but not for example in Kurdish areas). In the places where they're seen, a "human rights worker" would have his head chopped off.

    1. Re:White Helmets are not "human rights workers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. If they're funded by Turkey why would he work on Kurdish areas? Bluntly put Turkey's leader wants to see the Kurds eradicated from this planet and will use any excuse to achieve this. If they weren't already in the NATO, because of their strategic position, and funded by the EU refugee deal Erdogan and Putin could probably be best buddies.

    2. Re:White Helmets are not "human rights workers" by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I think for a two sentence summary that's not too bad.

      There is a two part article about the white helmets https://www.alternet.org/world...

      Al Qaeda likes them a lot. Not my opinion, theirs. The WH been very valuable in the propaganda war.

      The topic article of course is entirely about discrediting any information which comes out about the White Helmets.

      We've had a lot of this discrediting of dissent by linking it to Russian Trolls and there will be a lot more. It works very well.

    3. Re:White Helmets are not "human rights workers" by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I don't see the link to part 2 in part one so here it is. This is where most of the WH stuff is discussed.
      https://www.alternet.org/grayz...

    4. Re:White Helmets are not "human rights workers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And have been producing fake news themselves. Like the latest chemical attack. If you see the footage, it's clearly staged (same body in 2 different places, touching victims with bare hands, but also a gas mask etc.).

      You don't have to believe what is claimed to be fake news, judge for yourself based on the publicly available material.

  45. Silly Person by smugfunt · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Telegraph
    The Guardian

    It is undeniable that the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society are western funded yet operate only in jihadi held territory. Their videos are staged. Their claims are questionable. The fog of war is thick in the mainstream media.

    1. Re:Silly Person by guestapoo · · Score: 1
      In a article about Syria on NY Times, despite painted (as usual) Assad as brutal murder, but could not denied that:

      In March, I met a lawyer named Anas Joudeh, who took part in some of the 2011 protests. Joudeh no longer considers himself a member of the opposition. I asked him why. “No one is 100 percent with the regime, but mostly these people are unified by their resistance to the opposition,” Joudeh told me. “They know what they don’t want, not what they want.” In December, he said, “Syrians abroad who believe in the revolution would call me and say, ‘We lost Aleppo.’ And I would say, ‘What do you mean?’ It was only a Turkish card guarded by jihadis.” For these exiled Syrians, he said, the specter of Assad’s crimes looms so large that they cannot see anything else. They refuse to acknowledge the realities of a rebellion that is corrupt, brutal and compromised by foreign sponsors. This is true. Eastern Aleppo may not have been Raqqa, where ISIS advertised its rigid Islamist dystopia and its mass beheadings. But as a symbol of Syria’s future, it was almost as bad: a chaotic wasteland full of feuding militias — some of them radical Islamists — who hoarded food and weapons while the people starved.

      And, deliberately revealed that:

      [PHOTO of a bombed hospital]
      The roof of the Aleppo Eye Hospital, which rebels used as a military headquarters.

      smugfunt: It is undeniable that the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society are western funded yet operate only in jihadi held territory.

      And one would wonder why there is no White Helmets in Yemen, why no Western funded "NGO" has ever operated in Yemen and/or is deliberately frequently promoted in MSM like White Helmets.
      Everyone who question the role, motive, credibility of White Helmets, no mater who they are, they were/are/will be immediately labeled as problematic/propagandist/misinformed, as if only Russians run fake news:
      https://medium.com/@caityjohns...
      https://www.rt.com/news/424078...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Also, it's so easy to debunk the rescue videos of White Helmets: no first aid, all are dramatical runnings, the victims are either without or with very little dirt, bruises, etc.

    2. Re:Silly Person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THANK YOU
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

      We know the real motives lie in not helping civilians.

    3. Re:Silly Person by aod7br7932 · · Score: 1

      The story is crazy. Thanks for showing the facts!

  46. WHITE HELMETS ARE PROVEN al Nusra/al Qaeda by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0, Troll

    There's no room for any other conclusion. Extraordinarily well documented. Organized by "The Syria Campaign", a group of UK origin intelligence professionals, based in New York.

    https://dissidentvoice.org/201...

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/...

    https://www.truthdig.com/artic...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:WHITE HELMETS ARE PROVEN al Nusra/al Qaeda by tinkerton · · Score: 0

      Remarkable how this is modded down isn't it.

    2. Re: WHITE HELMETS ARE PROVEN al Nusra/al Qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really: it cites the very same MintPressNews mentioned in the story as a source of fakery.

    3. Re: WHITE HELMETS ARE PROVEN al Nusra/al Qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And it's called fake news by the very people it accuses of being intelligence assets. Odd no?

    4. Re:WHITE HELMETS ARE PROVEN al Nusra/al Qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent sources, especially Truthdig. Too bad most on this site are so indoctrinated with corporate news that they don't even question the dominant narrative.

    5. Re: WHITE HELMETS ARE PROVEN al Nusra/al Qaeda by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1, Informative

      An acquaintance here occasionally does some work for Uncle Sam in the deserts of the Middle East. In his exceptionally well-informed and thoughtful opinion, yes, the White Helmets are Al Qaeda.

  47. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I've been reading this site for years, writing as AC on and off for more than a decade.

    Prove it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  48. Nonsense article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Syria is caught in the middle of a proxy war between US-aligned and Russian-aligned forces. It's almost impossible to be neutral under those circumstances. The white helmets are supported by the US and therefore treated with suspicion by Russia and Syria. US support means it's easier for them to help US-backed militias in the conflict and in the fog of war, boundaries will get constantly blurred.

  49. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by DejaBu · · Score: 1

    First, prove you're not a Russian bot or a nazi homophobic misogynist, or a transvestite penguin who moonlights doing variety shows! What? You don't want to as the request is asinine or otherwise can't? Obviously you're one of THEM!!!!

  50. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the long history of American 3 letter agencies doing exactly this to third world countries, you'd think they would have spent some effort protecting America against the exact same attack vector.

  51. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    First, prove you're not a Russian bot or a nazi homophobic misogynist,

    Read my posting history.

    You don't want to as the request is asinine or otherwise can't?

    It's not a matter of wanting to; I don't have to do anything, because my long and hallowed posting history speaks for itself.

    The request is not asinine; it proves a point. And that point is that nobody will ever believe that you lurked here for years before posting. Assuming you did, you were too cowardly to log in, and now you're paying for that. But it's safer to assume that you didn't.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  52. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooohh, nice ad hominem while trying to shift the burden of proof as a red herring tactic.
    That was very effective in discrediting yourself. But don't worry too much, the troll army will see that your karma is protected. Everyone useful idiot with good enough English is welcome. If anything they don't discriminate a lot.

  53. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of crap. How about you use a bit of critical thinking for a change?

    Yes, RT certainly bought ads, like all news media. And yes, RT certainly use subjects that could raise passion, as that's the best way to make people click on those ads and then share RT as a source of information. So what? I live in Canada. Do you think the CBC didn't do the same? Will you also accuse Canada of trying to destabilize the US?

    I check RT's website every day. I subscribed to RT's channel on YouTube. The reality is I like RT a lot because I get (real) news that is otherwise censored in Western media, and because there is a real diversity of opinion, something I do not see in Western media. This diversity of opinion is why, for example, people like Jill Stein and Ron Paul were regularly on RT. Will you also accuse Jill Stein and Ron Paul of being part of a Russian conspiracy to destabilize the US?

    Stop playing the fucking victim of a bogeyman. I can assure that Americans are well able to destabilize themselves. I mean just look at the left who is still calling over and over anyone who supports the current US president as "racist", "misogynistic", "homophobic", and pretty much any insult they can think of. Look at how Kanye West is now insulted over and over by the left because he said he liked Trump. Do you think this bellicose and anti-democratic attitude from the left is because they saw some ads from RT?

  54. Know them by their works by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    So if "destabilizing us" is the problem, doesn't that mean that #resist are unwitting (?) Russian agents?

    I mean, here's an album of what the Russian trolls were posting.

    Apparently the Russians were colluding with BLM, who knew? Is that why you guys always call out to your buddy Ivan?

    1. Re:Know them by their works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We knew. Because there was even an article right here on /. about this last year. And apparently it was a Russian newspaper that investigated and published these things. https://www.rbc.ru/magazine/20...
      And the article on slashdot: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

  55. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    I think the joke is the same as everyone who calls an AC they don't want to bother addressing the content of "Vlad" or "Ivan." The next comment down from here is DRJlaw doing just that.

    Funny how much you complain when the shoe is on the other foot.

  56. Trump won by 100,000 votes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    in key districts. So it's not fair to say there was no impact. The election was so close it's entirely possible this was the proverbial straw. Also, there's strong evidence that Russia got ahold of tons of voter demographics during the election during one of the hacks. At the very least they would have used these to target ads. There's also some evidence they shared that data with the Republican party.

    All that said, if Hilary hadn't been so damn arrogant and had just campaigned in the Rust belt none of this would be happening. She really was the worst candidate in history.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trump won by 100,000 votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First, the Russians tend to support both sides of an issue. The ads that have been released have largely been issue ads rather than candidate ads. They like to stoke tension in general, not flip an election for Trump.

      Second, the presidential election cost $2.4 billion. We'll ignore all the other advertising and concentrate on Facebook. On Facebook alone, Trump and Clinton together spent $81 million. The Russians pumped only $100k, almost two orders of magnitude less, into Facebook ads, most of them apparently not candidate ads but issue ads. How could the Russians have such better targeting than either the Republicans or the Democrats that they could, with such limited resources, flip an election? Even if Trump won by 100,000 votes, that's only a dollar per vote, while the other campaigns were spending $810.

      If the Russians really were clever enough to do that much with that little, while the Clinton and Trump campaigns were wasting that much money to accomplish anything, we would be better off turning the government over to the Russians, because we would have demonstrated ourselves utterly incompetent at the art of statecraft against their genius. Too bad that they aren't geniuses, we aren't that dumb, Russia is a corrupt shithole, and Facebook ads didn't win the election: Clinton's failure to address the middle class as well as Trump lost the election. Since that happened, the market is up 5000 points, North Korea is talking about peace, and the dire prophecies of the media pundits, who also pushed the Russia narrative, have failed to come to pass. It's time to move on.

  57. Hey that's insensitive! by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Could be a Natalia...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  58. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have about three million posts I did as AC I can link you to.

    Is that enough?

  59. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's actually just tit for tat for similar things the state department was doing in Russia.

  60. syrian observatory for human rights ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RT & Sputnik keep telling it's ONE person in England and not a mutlinational organization like he name could suggest (and like mainstream media are presenting it)

    Who's right on this one ?

  61. Just watch Carla Ortiz video from Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very interesting video from Syria.
    https://youtu.be/DCu8mNC1JyE

  62. RELIGION OF PEACE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.rt.com/news/426560-paris-place-opera-stabbing/

  63. Sure Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is some TRUTH instead of perpetual Mainstream Media Lies:

    https://www.rt.com/news/426560-paris-place-opera-stabbing/

    https://www.rt.com/news/426550-spiegel-trump-cover-iran/

    https://www.rt.com/usa/426552-manning-us-governments-oppressive/

  64. BUT !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is not doing what the arms industry and the banksters paid for when they hired Clinton !!!

  65. NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump’s plans are not about starting a war with Iran but trying to bring about regime change by draining it financially. It’s a plan which is doomed to fail, and could also create a costly trade war with the EU.

    You have to go back quite some time in contemporary history to find a policy decision taken by a superpower so spectacularly wrong, that it compares to the decision by Donald Trump to pull out of the so-called Iran deal. One tends to think more recently of the decision by George W. Bush to not only invade Iraq with no real plan, but to also cancel all pay to the Iraqi army – a move which perhaps our grandchildren will still feel the impact of, in decades to come. Another one, perhaps, could be the decision in 1956 for Britain to plough ahead with the military campaign in Suez, an all-time low in British history which still produces red faces from bewildered politicos and historians today.

    Has Trump’s buffoonery in the Middle East with this latest decision also set a new milestone in off-the-scale inanity? What exactly are we witnessing?
    Read more
    FILE PHOTO: An Israeli Air Force F-35 fighter jet © Amir Cohen Israel launches massive missile strikes in Syria

    The decision appears to have come out of desperation after 18 months in office and still not being able to assert himself in the Middle East, in particular in Iran. But the statement made on the Iran deal is so deeply flawed with lies – even James Mattis has stated that Iran “robustly” complied with the terms of the deal, including inspections – one has to wonder if his recourse is nothing more than an exercise in trivia. Is Trump fiddling while Rome burns? Have all plans failed and so all he is left with is this juvenile ruse which is really nothing more than a churlish statement?

    Trump has manufactured a crisis in the last two days which wasn’t there before. In 48 hours, we now have a new, heightened tension with Iran, a statement from Saudi Arabia that it will have to develop nuclear weapons, and an intensified military campaign between Iran and Israel in Syria.

    If Trump wanted to create a crisis which dominates the headlines and puts him in the media spotlight 24/7, then he certainly achieved that. But his methodology and understanding of the region is comically flawed. Some pundits believe he wants war with Iran. In my view, he doesn’t, but is focusing on trying to topple its regime – a strategy no doubt supported by John Bolton, a man who dodged the Vietnam draft but apparently loves war – as long as he’s not the one on the battlefield.

    But here’s where the fatal flaw lies in his thinking.

    Absolutely critical to this master plan to shake Iran and bring about an economic crisis, which in turn, he believes could facilitate regime change, is hitting its economy hard. Certainly, Trump can bully countries around the world which have trade agreements with Iran – but giants like Russia, China and the EU?

    Trump believes that, with the vague threat of trade tariffs on steel and aluminum still hanging in the air, the EU is perhaps the weakest link and will comply with ‘secondary sanctions’ against Iran. But this is already apparently impossible for EU countries like France and their economies. Their stoic resolve is pretty clear, according to statements. EU countries can’t entertain this idea as it would push Iran down a slippery slope of developing a nuclear weapon, which in turn could easily create war in the Middle East. Europe simply cannot cope with new torrents of refugees and terrorist attacks. Even politically speaking, it would set a fetid precedent for Europe to allow the US to bully them into playing such a servile role to Trump’s half-baked plans on the foreign policy circuit. Indeed, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, will not allow the Iran deal to collapse as it would make the EU look weak and ineffective – an iconic international treaty, brokered

  66. Biggest Fake News Event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was 2003 when they had to whip the sheeple into support for the illegal Iraq war. Lies, Lies and non-existent WMD.

    Now they want us to believe them AGAIN.

    Göbbels would be proud of CNN and NYTIMES.

  67. White helmet members photo ID-ed as beheaders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > disinformation campaign portraying Syrian humanitarian workers ("White Helmets") as terrorists and crisis actors

    That's not disinformation, that's the truth. The web is full of photo pairs identifying the face of white helmet members with their previous armed roles in various jihadist "rebel" groups, gangs who made themselves infamous by frequently posting beheading videos on Youtube.

    The USA, Saudi Arabia and various gulf oil sheikdoms, as well as .il supports these jihadist-turned-fake-disaster-rescue guys with money, PR and weapons. Luckily Russian Air Force expeditionary squadrons are regularly bombing the living shit out of ISIL, jihadi "moderates" and fake kurds, helping to liberate ad re-unify Syria.

    More and more people support Assad and Putin in Europe as more and more recognize that US-IL are run by war-crazed, religious fanatics (who wouldn't mind WW3 if it's neded to realize the infamous Yinon-plan for the creation of a so-called Greater Israel, thereby invoking the Armageddon).

    1. Re:White helmet members photo ID-ed as beheaders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blyat!

    2. Re:White helmet members photo ID-ed as beheaders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> disinformation campaign portraying Syrian humanitarian workers ("White Helmets") as terrorists and crisis actors
      >
      > That's not disinformation, that's the truth

      Check this collection with over 100 pairs of photos concerning jihadist faces matched with those of white helmets:

      https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/01/now-you-see-me-over-100-white-helmet-self-posted-facebook-images-expose-fake-humanitarian-group-as-fsa-terrorists-in-bed-with-al-qaeda/

      They are so stupid they posted themselves on FB publicly, posing with machine guns and machetes in the field and beheading people for sharia, before "converting" to white helmet hollywood movie acting. Here is one particularly obvious example:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dc-V30gU0AAGgQK.jpg

  68. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RT IS REAL NEWS. American "news" media outlets censor 9-11 truth and they're definitely run by so-called Democrats.

    ae911truth dot com

  69. Post Bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone were to have e a lot of years of experience developing some sophisticated software to post to sites like Craigslist, Facebook and other places it's easy to reach large audiences with; would the US government consider hiring them to develop tools for counter propaganda campaigns.

    Asking for a friend who is tired of working for people with a penchant for misleading claims and possible fraud and can't buy legitimate advertising...

  70. Never mind what the Russians are saying!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How 'bout you Americans tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

  71. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  72. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Yep, that's what we all say. [youtube.com]

    Caution: The above link is neo-nazi shit. from one of the "European Identity" cuck groups that are mad because dark-skinned types are taking all their women and their moms are on their asses to get jobs..

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  73. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tinfoil hatters gonna hat.

  74. Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against." - Malcolm X

  75. what will trump do? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Nothing. His boss would be upset that Trump is fighting against his efforts.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:what will trump do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't shoehorn coal in there as well? You're slipping.

  76. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's the weather in Langley?

  77. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't find anything in the paper that offered evidence that the information was wrong or inaccurate. The entire thing is predicated on the assumption that the white helmets are, in fact, a human rights organization with no connection to Jihadi groups in Syria, but no evidence offered. That's what we call innuendo.

  78. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Yes, that is the argument. It's an attempt to paint all views left of Mussolini as part of some great conspiracy, and push the centre of politics to the far right.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  79. What about American fake-news ecosystem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, the stuff that's on TV all the time?

  80. American fake news ecosystem targets Americans by najajomo · · Score: 1

    snort !!!

  81. Well white helmets are actually al-nusra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Syrian islamist organizations don't allow infidel organizations access to their territory.
    There is more then enough footage availabe to support this conclusion.
    Western insisntance to support the cotinuation of the war in Syria is weird and borders on immoral.

  82. Re: Don't be a cuck! by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    Nazi-obsessed Gulag-apologist trolls sure do have a lot of repressed homoerotic feelings for "right wing" celebrities.

  83. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    > And they were designed so that the people who saw them would be most likely to engage

    You don't say.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  84. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Tanon · · Score: 1

    Capitalists didn't invent the concept of competition - they just realised it naturally (pun intended) brought about optimal outcomes. You can rail all you want against competition, but you should pause to remember that you're a direct result and net beneficiary of it. Competition is simply a fact of life: if you don't compete, you lose.

  85. Oh noes! Russia is spreading Fake News!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Slashdot, mind updating us on what's happening in Yemen? Are U.S. backed forces still dumping white phosphorous on civilians?

    Oh but who the fuck cares about that, RUSSIAN FAKE NEWS IS COMING TO GET YOU.

  86. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha yes, my English is bad, which does not make software developers any less credulous idiotae they are for their lack of humanitarian, liberal education.

  87. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mussolini is perhaps a bad example, he was a commie that worked for the same British MI-N you are working.

    Yes ma'am, the Brits do conspire against US all the time , and the leftist propaganda is just one of their fav tools.

  88. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. by jonklement · · Score: 1

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In this case, RT and Sputnik could be those clocks. Just because they aren't trusted doesn't mean they're not right about this. The White Helmets ARE Al-Qaeda. It's been extensively investigated and documented by people on the scene in the Middle East.

  89. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have about three million posts I did as AC I can link you to.

    Is that enough?

    Is that you, APK?

  90. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you asserting that Sweden is paying a legion of trolls to get the US to elect a calm, rational, smart president?

    Man, I wish they would actually do that.

  91. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    the poor getting poorer

    If you're going to repeat this kind of nonsense you can't really expect to be taken seriously on anything else you say.

  92. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    The reality is I like RT a lot because I get (real) news that is otherwise censored in Western media, and because there is a real diversity of opinion, something I do not see in Western media.

    The kind of mental gymnastics one has to be capable of in order to reach this conclusion is just incredible. You can replace RT with InfoWars or DailyKos and it would sound no more absurd.

  93. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't even prove that a place called Russia even exists. Claims that they are in the other hemisphere fail. Because the earth is flat! If there were people on the other side, they'd all fall off.

    It's all a conspiracy on the part of the military-industrial complex to keep us funneling out tax dollars into non existent weapons systems.

  94. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the poor getting poorer

    If you're going to repeat this kind of nonsense you can't really expect to be taken seriously on anything else you say.

    You're right -- if you have nothing, you can't really have less than nothing. Well, I suppose you can have crushing debt, but even most poor people aren't in that state, occasional mortgage/student loan/credit card stories aside.

    What we do have is a shrinking middle class. That doesn't mean the upper class is suddenly swelling, it means standards of living have been falling, and jobs concentrate in areas where people can't afford to live.

  95. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we reading political activist stories on Slashdot?

    Because it happened "on the Internet." That makes it a tech story, right?

  96. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Tom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Real wages are falling or stagnant.

    Yes, if you want to be pedantic, who is actually getting poorer is the middle class, which is being eroded away, while the poor simply stay poor. But the point is that the wealth gap is increasing.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  97. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Tom · · Score: 1

    No, capitalism didn' invent competition - it merely announced that it is the magic bullet to solve all problems and should be holy and protected and most importantly: Unlimited.

    But reality does not agree. Humans are social creatures and altruism evolved for equally good reasons. A total competition attitude might be appropriate for solitary predators - the self-image of many successful capitalists. But humans are not solitary predators. Social and altruistic traits benefit the survival of the group and while they might even be detrimental to the individual, in evolutionary terms they are beneficial.

    The doctrine of the self-interested individual completely ignores a basic fact of what it means to be human.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  98. Sure, and the Hezbollah is Russian trolls too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the beginning of ISIS, Hezbollah was already fighting them. They've been in the Syrian conflict for a while now and it seems pretty safe to assume they know who these people are.
    They are al nusra/al qaeda. And they are financed by the US/UK/etc.
    By the way things are they in the American political scene, they are probably going to be called Russian trolls fake news too.

    This summary and TFA are trying to push people away from reading the "alternative news", but this article Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception – Part I links to USAID.gov to prove that the USG is financing them. The alternative news points to government spending, but these people here are trying to red scare you into not reading them.

    People here (who I'm sure have been called Russian trolls sometime in the past year) have pointed out that the NYT and the Guardian also pointed out who finances the White Helmets or where they are working.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/may/10/uk-aid-syria-white-helmets-trump-pulls-funding
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/magazine/aleppo-after-the-fall.html

  99. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Tanon · · Score: 1

    I don't think we're anywhere near close enough to understanding the underlying principles behind societal or altruistic behaviour, for you to make simplistic, blanket statements about its net, as well as intended, outcomes.

    There's evidence to suggest that behaviour that we might normally consider as altruistic is, in fact, ultimately selfish, when you look at organisms from the slightly more sophisticated point of view as a carrier of genes, rather than just a selfish individual: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcent...

    Certainly, when we look at recent social history, we can see that there's many examples where individuals who have purported to act in altruistic, or otherwise unselfish ways, for the benefit of others, have, in the long run, gone on to disproportionately benefit themselves, to the extreme detriment of everyone else i.e every successful Communist leader in the last century.

    Interestingly, this kind of deceptive exploitation that relies on the better character (or naivety) of others might be a behaviour that develops in a subset of psychopathic individuals who, rather than simply callously acting in their own self-interest to the detriment of others, actually genuinely believe that they know what is best for other people, better than them themselves. In this way, they 'unknowingly' deceive others into thinking they are altruistic, whilst ultimately only acting selfishly, to the detriment of others, as all psychopaths do. When you look at successful Communist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. it's almost certain that they must have been psychopaths in order to lack the empathy that enabled them to do what they did. In this sense, the success of the Communist regimes may, ironically, have been the result of evolutionary competition itself, where having a certain expression of psychopathic traits resulted in an enormous evolutionary advantage.

  100. Re: Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks! I was looking for that!

  101. News For Deplorables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Russian Alt-News story, which is catnip for Deplorables. Great job, Brownie!

  102. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    More horseshit. In 1990 the number of people globally living in extreme poverty was 1.9 billion. Today it is 836 million. This has induces some erosion of the middle class in "first world" nations, yeah, but a far bigger effect has been the increase in single parent households. Neither "the poor" nor the "the middle class" are earning less; people are getting compensated the same or more than they were a few decades ago, they're just making worse life choices. Meanwhile poverty on a global level is massively decreasing.

  103. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    wrong. none of the strife in america has anything to do with the Russians.

    we have racial problems, without the Russians.

    we have class struggle, without the Russians.

    we have corporations with government in their pockets, without the Russians.

    Your Russian bogeyman doesn't exist.

  104. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Tom · · Score: 1

    "extreme poverty" is defined as living on less than $1.90 per day. Or about $57 per month. Or $693.50 per year.

    Yes, the amount of people living in that income bracket has been reduced dramatically, and that is one of the biggests successes in the history of mankind and an incredible progress made possible by all the things both left- and right-wing extremists hate so much.

    Meanwhile, as the other comment shows in abundance, the majority of new wealth generated in most of the developed countries goes to the top, not the middle or the bottom. While extreme poverty is going down, "simple" povery is going up. Don't believe me? Here's a graph from my home country:

    https://de.statista.com/statis...

    Here are government graphs, in case you think the source is biased:

    http://www.bpb.de/wissen/GCP6X...

    How can both of these be true? Because prices differ as well, and a lot. The average yearly income in Congo (~$770) would put you among the poor in the most developed countries if you had it available per month.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  105. Re: "roiled the U.S. election" by Tom · · Score: 1

    when you look at organisms from the slightly more sophisticated point of view as a carrier of genes, rather than just a selfish individual:

    Err... there is any other sensible way to look at them from an evolutionary position? Of course the genes matter, not the individual. That's why we evolved to have a vigorous youth and old age is nothing but an afterthought. Once you've raised your kids, the genes don't give a shit what happens to you, and their attitude is clearly visible in how we age.

    i.e every successful Communist leader in the last century.

    Every leader everywhere always claims that he is making sacrifices for his country. It's part of the show. You could say the same thing for every dictatorial leader anywhere on the political spectrum. What keeps leaders in developed countries away from such extremes is the checks and balances system and the fact that they don't get to enjoy the job until death, so they have to think about the time when they return to more or less ordinary life.

    If you want obviousness, look back a few hundred years and notice how almost every absolute leader in the history of the world had a collection of women around him. While only the arabic leaders had official harems, kings in Europe had plenty of lovers and courtesans, some of them semi-officially (or at least openly enough to build them their own personal palaces).

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  106. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    wrong. stop at the 11.4 million seeing that nonsense. most americans didn't see it, that's what that means. and "exposed"? please, I see ads and get spam all day and don't buy or contact nigerian princes.

    your "organic content" stats mean nothing, made up bullshit by people trying to get others worked up over *nothing*