Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign (nytimes.com)
Facebook is preparing to announce that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November's midterm elections, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing three people briefed on the matter. From the report: In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week, the company told lawmakers that it detected the influence campaign as part of its investigations into election interference. It has been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two of the officials. Facebook is expected to announce its findings on Tuesday afternoon. The company has been working with the F.B.I. to investigate the activity. Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues. Update: Facebook has confirmed the story, adding: Today we removed 32 Pages and accounts from Facebook and Instagram because they were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior. This kind of behavior is not allowed on Facebook because we don't want people or organizations creating networks of accounts to mislead others about who they are, or what they're doing. We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this. But we are sharing what we know today given the connection between these bad actors and protests that are planned in Washington next week. We will update this post with more details when we have them, or if the facts we have change. It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder.
Don't be surprised if it turns out the DNC and GOP are behind this election interference!
Dark Reflection
Generally, most people agree that there is a huge difference between people eligible to vote in an election trying to influence each other, and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
I wonder why it is you didn't know that?
They are for FB. But why they need to try to tie everything to Russia is beyond me. Why don't we care about all the other countries and/or intenational groups or individuals that are also attempting the same stuff. Why not a single story that talks about anyone but Russia?
The saddest part of all of this is the idea that people are forming political opinions based on what they read on FB. That to me is the biggest problem we have.
I miss the good old days when journalists reported the news rather than trying to create it.
Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Would be nicer if we could collectively be intelligent enough to not use social media as a source of news and information.
The biggest threat to democracy is people who can't handle information. People who listen only to their own filter bubble and believe anything that somehow fits their narrative, no matter how ridiculous and overblown it might be. Remember Pizzagate? The idea that some of the "elite" run a child porn ring in a pizza parlor? It does not get much more ridiculous than that, but lo and behold, you found people who believe it, amplify it, retell it and eventually, well, if EVERYONE says it, it MUST be true, right?
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies. And I have to include western Europe here now, too. We're used to a press that is allowed to tell us the truth. What we failed to understand is that being allowed to does not mean being forced to. Just because you MAY say how it is doesn't mean that you MUST. And since scandals sell more and get more eyeballs than simple information, news outlets that offered information rather than sensationalism are getting pushed into the background. Or even had to bend to the trend and become more sensational themselves.
Maybe it is time that we teach our kids to be more critical. To verify what they hear. But NOT do what a bunch of those "critical" people do instead, i.e. thinking that they're critical and "free thinking" if they reject A because it's mainstream and instead believe B because it's "alternative facts".
Verifying information is hard. Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier. The problem isn't Facebook, Twitter or even various fake news outlets.
The problem is that we all too readily believe what we want to hear.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
SocialmediaSecurityAgency needs to be formed up mandated by congress. I am sure it will just as effective as TSA.
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
Nah, we just named a journalism award after one of the guys who invented yellow journalism.
So if Facebook finds an American firm working on Brexit or the CIA trying to spread disinformation in Egypt, are we going to get a headline when Facebook uncovers it?
That's right; we need to leave influence over ele tions [sic] up to the corporations, like god intended!
Yeah, because that bullshit false dichotomy and false equivalency (congrats on working both logical fallacies into one sentence, I wonder if that's a new record) means we can only allow Russia, China, or one of our other adversaries influence us wantonly by pretending to be us, or else we must submit to corporate influence. Doing neither is not an option, and if one can't be fixed right away, we shouldn't bother trying to fix the other.
Enjoying your vodka, Ivan?
Yeah...I mean, it could be Hillary and clan....
[ducks}
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Exactly. The word "troll" has become meaningless. Basically it means "I don't agree with you and want to shut you up".
I have two explanations for the general reaction of some to reports of interference in the election (and in particular Russian influence).
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls.
2. If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Since for the dedicated Trump base, that's an impossible scenario to even contemplate, outright rejection of any evidence is the only way out of the cognitive dissonance that such evidence creates.
But really, at this point, we have the President and his spokesmen outright saying "Collusion isn't illegal", so there's not even denial now, but simply trying to frame what everyone knows to be true as business as usual. So why anyone seems interested in denying it is beyond me, when Trump himself has pretty much admitted it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies."
Predestination.
The Pilgrims believed that before the foundation of the world, God predestined to make the world, man, and all things. He also predestined, at that time, who would be saved, and who would be damned. Only those God elected would receive God's grace, and would have faith. There was nothing an individual could do during their life that would cause them to be saved (or damned), since God had already decided who was going to be saved before the creation of the world. However, God would not have chosen blatant sinners to be his elect; and therefore those who were godly were likely to be the ones God had elected to be saved.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So if I authentically believe grieving parents of murdered children are crisis actors paid off by George Soros, we're still cool Facebook?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Here's some non-fake news: humans are more like Ferengis than Vulcans.
Table-ized A.I.
Like La Raza?
Also known as politics
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I wondered, why is it that the summary mentions not just what kinds of false organizations were present that had to be removed?
Following the story link you can see for yourself:
"Aztlan Warriors", "Black Elevation", "Mindful Being", and "Resisters."
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way. Kind of funny that was not mentioned in the summary. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
It makes you wonder if groups are going to all the trouble to create false fronts on Facebook, how many people you see at protests are really there because what they are protesting, or how many are there to be paid to stir up trouble - I have thought a lot of Antifa people are probably not really wanting to burn cars/buildings, but that there are selected individuals added to stir up the mob just to create chaos.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The NYT times is reporting these groups were supporting the Abolish ICE movement. Why was that left out of the summary?
Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Yeah, but apparently we aren't, so the next question is, how is this going to work?
I don't think Facebook's job is to decide what influence is desirable or undesirable, but at the same time, they've put themselves in the position of responsibility. If they do nothing to control the situation, it doesn't make them less responsible. They're still responsible for making a powerful tool of mass manipulation and then failing to prevent abuse.
I think the goal should generally be to create transparency. If various groups want to mount propaganda wars on Facebook, then at a bare minimum, Facebook should be identifying the which content is being pushed by which group. That should include attempts to identify people who misrepresent themselves, e.g. paid shills and political astroturfers. And if the posts are illegal, as is the case with Russian spies, then that should be reported to law enforcement.
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
If you believe that then you have never been exposed to a church. In the words of George Carlin, "you have to stand in awe, in AWE of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest! Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told."
Maybe it is time that we teach our kids to be more critical.
To teach someone to think critically first requires being able to do it oneself.
Verifying information is hard.
Sometimes but not always. Much of the time it barely requires any real effort.
Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier.
That's hard for people who have been conditioned to believe what they are told from a young age. You know, like in a church...
Astro-turfing?
Earth is a single point of failure.
Why don't we care about all the other countries and/or intenational groups or individuals that are also attempting the same stuff. Why not a single story that talks about anyone but Russia?
Listen, there might be other countries with some level of misinformation and propaganda, and nobody is saying those propaganda campaigns shouldn't be stopped, but nothing has been uncovered of the scope and scale of what Russia has been doing. It's a little like saying, "Why doesn't anyone care about all the jaywalking that goes on? Why does everyone keep talking about the serial killer that murdered 35 people?"
You have to have a little perspective. One of our biggest adversaries has been aggressively tampering with our elections. It's a big deal.
People are saying collusion isn't illegal...
Collusion is just descriptive shorthand for "conspiracy to defraud the United States" which is an actual crime that is being investigated.
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
I think that's slightly naive. For as long as there's been information, there's been misinformation. I'd sooner place the problem as being inherent to human psychology, that we hear what we want to hear, believe what we want to believe, and we're easily manipulated. If you think you can't be manipulated, that just means you're easier to manipulate.
Now there are some other factors contributing to our problems. For one, we've had a long period of peace and prosperity. You have a bunch of people who are complacent and fail to recognize just how bad things can get. Meanwhile, you have a new technology that makes mass manipulation that much easier, and most of the world is run by people who have no understanding of that new technology. And there are a bunch of other factors, and it all makes for a troubling combination.
There's not an easy solution. You can say that better education might improve things, but we have some serious disagreements about what constitutes "better education", and whether there should be public education at all. So it's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg problem.
Don't forget. Our election couldn't be hacked until the wrong person won.
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
My friends and family represent a very diverse range of people from all walks of life. Getting my news and information from Facebook means that I get exposed to a lot of different angles and ideas; and it's generally filtered by things that I think are important. Naturally that means I have to take things with a grain of salt sometimes, and often get stuff (on both sides) that's inflammatory or just plain wrong. I still think that's better than giving editorial control to some corporation.
Note: that I'm not in the "mainstream media is fake news" camp. Breitbart and Fox are corporations as much as WP and NYT, and the latter do actually care about the truth. But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Conspiracy actually is illegal. And no, the point of the Mueller investigation is to investigate claims of illegal conspiracy between members of the Trump organization and the Russian government. Of which multiple Russian nationals have been indicted, and at least one American citizen has pled guilty. It is currently unknown how far into the organization it went- we can speculate, but as of yet only his NSA has pled guilty and only his campaign manager has been indicted on related issues with Russia, so we'll have to see where the evidence goes when a final report is issued.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
traditional news agencies that are held accountable.
The best comedy is always in the comments.
Because there is evidence that points to Russia. There may be other countries doing this, but there is little evidence. Russia is engaging this in a big way, not just as a small hobby for some retired politicians. No other country seems to be close to this scale. It only compounds things that Russia is an adversary.
They got me.
Personally I'd rather not have large donors of any sort provide financing for campaign advertising. But if you're going to allow that, it should be clear who is providing the financing and the content should be labeled as such - campaign advertising.
Even if you're not going to be that strict, I'd definitely draw the line at foreign government/interests using social media as tool to manipulate and disrupt our elections, - which is quite a bit different than using social media to promote your own candidacy.
What scope and scale? Buying Facebook ads? Are you joking?
A concerted and sustained effort to hack the DNC and Hilary Clinton. The successful hacking of various election systems across the country. A massive propaganda campaign that included Facebook and a dozen other sites. Coordination with one of the campaigns to fix the election.
Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
But no, go change the subject. Talk about Media Matters.
Which American pled guilty to collusion with Russia? None, you fuck wat.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand used a lawfirm, to funnel money to FusionGPS (which is illegal FEC rules wise) that went to a UK national to get dirt on a political opponent. That IS collusion with a foreign entity using campaign money, and is EXACTLY what Muller is looking for in the Trump campaign. Funny how he isn't looking at Clinton's campaign where it did happen.
BTW. Steel likely used that money on Russian informants, which would mean Clinton ILLEGALLY COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA in the election. Literally the EXACT thing Muller is looking for.
Until Clinton is charged, we all know Muller, and you, are full of shit.
The issue that they seem to be trying to address is to expose groups that are coordinating an agenda under the guise of seemingly unrelated actors. This doesn't seem to be about saying "we don't like what Group A is saying". Rather, it seems to be targeting "Group A is pretending to be Group B through Z". This isn't necessarily about news either. The examples that have been published tend to be false flags. A group pretending to be a particular organization pushing a particular message, holding a rally, or doing something outrageous. In some examples, a single group is pretending to be two conflicting organizations, with the impersonation attempting to create divide between the two.
This doesn't need to be about foreign actors either. If political parties, advertisers, businesses, or even lone wolves are engaging in intentional deception in the origin of messages, that seems worthwhile to at least publicize.
None of the people indicted had anything to do with Trump or his campaign. Zero. It's almost as if it was designed so you would believe that they had.
Here's some non-fake news: humans are more like Ferengis than Vulcans.
I agree. Vulcan aren't like Ferengis at all.
If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.
It may, but probably not in any actionable way. Even if collusion is proven, the most that could happen would be impeachment and then Pence or Ryan or whoever would become president. The only way we would see a lot of chaos there is probably if Democrats gain a House majority and then both Trump and Pence are implicated in something where both of them get impeached, then we would end up with a Democrat as president. There are a lot of huge "ifs" there though.
Personally, I find it more likely that Mueller will find evidence of things more serious than collusion with Russia (but completely unrelated to the election) and that will take priority, which wouldn't de-legitimize the administration.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Back in the 60's there was this one guy, Walter Cronkite (google him) something like 90% of Americans believed it when he said anything.
He retired mostly because he started feeling like he was the ONLY Journalist who reported the News, without distorting it.
Hmm. Google cronkite stalemate. His editorializing single-handedly turned the tide of American public opinion against the Vietnam War.
That's just a factually incorrect statement. Look at the indictment against Papadopoulos, for example. I haven't looked at all of the other indictments, but that one example is enough to disprove your claim of zero.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
they admitted to doing it, and facebook admitted to wishing they could have helped even more
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
Yeah.
Seriously, I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. Even for-profit media (yes, run by an actual corporation!) is preferable to a bunch of uninformed idiots "just asking questions" without a single shred of proof between them. Look at back in 2016 when "fake news" was a bunch of people creating inflammatory posts to spread through social media with the goal of page views and advertising dollars. Look at how well those people did (5-figure incomes every month), and look at who they targeted. They targeted conservative groups and gave them stories that stroked their existing biases or presumptions, and those people spread that disinformation like wildfire. It only would have taken a single person to discover that, hey, this "local news website" does not have a homepage, and in fact it has only a single story on the entire site - the one that was linked to.
People are very easy to fool, and various groups of people will not check facts or question what they're reading. When that's the case, yes, even professional news corporations are preferable to a bunch of idiots in their bubbles reinforcing each others' biases without a single fact involved.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
There is nothing stopping a foreigner from buying an add on a billboard for a candidate? Why is this any different.
Nothing stops them from buying it, because billboards in America don't have to be pre-approved by the gubermint. Nobody stops you from putting it up, but then if you do somebody might get arrested; you, or maybe the person who accepted the ad buy.
Laws are enforced in the US after they are broken, not before. So you're right, this isn't anything different at all. Perhaps you just didn't know it would be illegal? Luckily, the people selling the billboard space usually do know. But foreigners are allowed to open businesses in the US, and are allowed to buy property, including billboards. So you could buy one and put the ad up, nobody would stop you before you did it.
Or a public school...
Only crap public schools which are either underfunded, or run by a bunch of locals according to their religious preferences (which goes back to the church again).
Many of us attended public schools that taught us critical thinking skills and prepared us for university. Then came along a multi-decade effort by religious conservatives to underfund public schools, close them, and replace them with for-profit "charter" schools and home "schooling," with the results we see today: only a tiny minority know how to think critically, the rest just buy into whatever propoganda (usually right-wing, but not exclusively so) that is put before them.
Where I come from public schools hand out scientifically sound information, churches hand out information based on the writings of ancient mystics. Thankfully the churches here mind their own business for the most part and don't give much credence to the more loony things written in their scriptures. Given the choice I'll trust the public school but then I don't live in the big convoluted mess of a society that you are describing.
More "whataboutism".
Why is it important how or when it started? Shouldn't it be stopped regardless of how it started? Isn't the important thing to protect our country now? Why does anything you say matter to the question of how to stop it from happening in the future?
Moreover - if any of the people you mentioned committed a crime, great, charge them for it. If not, then enough with the "whataboutism", it is not helpful.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Did they do anything illegal? If so, charge them. If not, stop with the "whataboutism."
Past actions do not excuse current crimes, regardless of who is involved.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It is entirely possible—for those who know what they're talking about—to employ m-dashes here.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's phishing and largely undifferentiated shitposting. The only reason they might have, but probably didn't, affect the election is because the Dems ran about the only candidate that could lose to Trump in a general election. For example, their entire campaign would have HURT Trump had Bernie been the Dem nominee.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That Russian Agent ( Maria ) Has stronger ties to Oabma (met with his administration) than the NRA (basically did nothing with them).
Make of that what you will... that and the fact that Obama did nothing about Russian interference despite being warned about a year in advance the Russians were trying to interfere.
What you and others have overlooked is that Obama obviously worked with Trump and Russia to prevent Hillary from being elected. It also fits with Obama being a stronger supporter of Russian actions that Trump. Trump has actually double-crossed Russia, once he was elected Trump proceeded to act directly against Russian interests (just ask 200 dead Russian mercenaries in Syria).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, in the good ol' days, we had different media competing with each other and trying to out-do each other with investigation. Back then, a sensational story was something that did probably hurt a powerful figure (Watergate comes to mind), but at least it was something that wasn't completely fabricated.
Today, we have increasing media concentration in fewer and fewer hands, leading to fewer and fewer actually different voices (just because there are 5 networks doesn't mean jack shit if they all belong to the same media concern) and what's left is a choir of near identical media outlets. People are turning to alternatives, unfortunately what little checks exist for traditional media is completely out the window when it comes to Facebook, Twitter and the like, where anyone, from anywhere can say anything with impunity and without having to fear backlash or a PR disaster. I could go on Twitter and declare as fact that Trump has fucked some starlet and that there is a video circulating already. Create a few webpages that look like official newspapers from abroad ("because the local media don't dare to"), deepfake a porn clip that you put on the torrent tracker of your preference and you can be sure that you find a few idiots that not only believe it but take the story and run with it, spreading the bullshit in wider and wider circles.
I kinda feel compelled to try something like this, for scientific curiosity, of course...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A little evidence goes a long way to support claims.
Regardless, what you need to determine is whether or not a crime was committed. It is obviously not illegal for any arbitrary person to attempt to influence an election. That is specifically what politicians, PACs, etc do during a campaign.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
> Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
You mean a hostile domestic government.
C.T.R/ share/blue are doing exactly what you suggest, and the legacy media and social media are all in on it.
This whole russia excuse is a laugh a minute when you can see actual americans being silenced every day.
Perhaps Facebook is just trying to appear more relevant than it is. They could have just silently "fixed" it if it is a problem, or report it to FBI if what was supposedly done is a crime. Instead they chose to make a press release.
On a related note, now that we all know that some news are are supposedly fake and some supposedly real, as if we hadn't before, and that it is difficult to make a distinction (every two views are complementary, goes one law of general systems theory), isn't that enough? If I like what I read and it's not very important I'll go with it even if I'm aware that it may not be true. If it is important for me in any way I'll make sure to look deeper. That's what people do anyway.
I don't mean delegitimization as in impeachment and removal. If the Dems take the House, impeachment becomes a possibility, but even if they do manage to take the Senate, it would probably be by the same margins the Republicans hold it now, which means they won't have the 2/3s vote to remove Trump, so I think removal is incredibly unlikely.
The effect of delegitimizing Trump is more an issue of political capital. If Mueller draws a straight enough line, even if it isn't straight enough to pull the plug on Trump's presidency, and in particular if the Dems do very well this November, delegitimization will greatly reduce cooperation between Congress and the Administration. Even with a Republican-dominated Congress, there's already talk of Congress taking back some of the powers (particularly trade powers) that had been "loaned" to the President, and you can be sure that such delegated powers would start to be stripped from the Executive, particularly if the balance tips towards the Democrats. The President has a lot of constitutional powers all his own, but a lot of what he does is essentially statutory in nature; Congress has passed laws allowing the Executive to do lots of things in many areas of government, and if Congress decides it can no longer trust the Executive, whether out of misdeed or incompetence, or in this situation, simply because the Presidency lacks the political credibility, that is where a loss of legitimacy could see the White House become isolated. And Trump would hardly be the first president to find himself largely shoved in to a corner, and the powers of Congress and the courts to restrain the Executive could make it pretty miserable for him.
The problem for the Republicans in general is that they're stuck between the rock (Trump himself) and the hard place (that solid Republican base that is loyal to Trump). The base can't win a lot of races for them, but they will win a lot less races if that base abandons them. So right now, with mid-terms just a few months away, they have to at least keep bailing water out of the hold to maximize their chances. I think to some extent they're probably overestimating the threat the Democrat's represent; the House is in play (and will likely flip) but the Senate is most likely to stay in Republican hands, though with pretty similar margins as they have now. I think the act of tying themselves so firmly to Trump will in the long run do them more harm than good, and at least a modest break with him, at least on specific files, would probably assist them, but obviously they have their own metrics for that that indicate otherwise.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The issue is selective outrage. If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence, they probably wouldn't get all that much push back (relatively speaking, obviously,because someone on the internet will be upset about everything).
But if you are focused only on Russia, then it's a scapegoat based on the results, not the underlying bad behavior.
And while pro-Trumpers obviously have that mindset, it's also a sentiment shared by the politically competent anti-Trumpers. You could take Trump down in a heartbeat for colluding with the Saudis or Israel, but he'd be sharing a cell with powerful DC insiders.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
And for good reason. The whole war was a sham and a farce.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Because there is evidence that points to Russia.
Not in this case. They said they have no clue who is doing it.
..and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
This is very much a recent (and entirely-artificial meme), as virtually every nation on Earth with an intelligence agency has been doing this de rigueur for a lot fucking longer than the ignorant plebs realize.
You mean like the United States meddling in other countries elections since the founding of the CIA back in 1947
you mean like the steele dossier.
Get them to fight each other and they won't care what leadership does.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Every nation on earth with any power tries to exert political influence on foreign nations, always have. The Assyrians were trying to influence Egyptian politics in their day.
The smart ones use a light touch, the dumb ones act like Obama during the last Israeli elections and produce the opposite of their desired result.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm sure there's a portion of that 30% base that could potentially slip, but in general my assumption is that the GOP has done a good enough at attacking Rosenstein and Mueller that the bar for the kind of evidence for malfeasance to see any significant portion of that base abandon Trump would be very high indeed. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidity as it were, but simply that the environment is so polarized that even hard evidence isn't likely to see any significant erosion in his support.
For the Republicans, 2018 may not even be the chief issue. A worst case scenario for them is to have the Dems retake Congress, even by nominal numbers in the Senate (I don't think it's going to happen, it's too stacked against the Democrats to make it likely). Even if the Dems take the House, that will be enough to disrupt the Administration's ability to get its policies through Congress. Trump would likely respond with a series of government shut downs, but if his political capital erodes, even with that 30% base intact, the Dems will likely be able to make a good argument that Administration intransigence and incompetence, with an aim to making even greater gains in 2020.
Honestly I don't see a good way out of this for the Republicans short of Trump deciding not to run in 2020. The signals still seem strong that he will, and certainly, unless things change greatly over the next two years, I see no reason to think Trump would be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2020. That surely must be what worries Republicans and their contributors, hence the now growing breach between major Republican donors like the Kochs and the party. I could well imagine mainstream Republicans and donors like the Kochs starting a sort of shadow war against Trump's renomination in 2020, with an effort to dislodge Trump's base enough to actually see a primary challenge with some momentum, but again, that's really based on separating Trump from some significant portion of his base. I think it's a long shot, and I see better than even odds that Trump, should he want to, being on the ticket for 2020.
Of course this is all prognostication. Maybe the Dems have a failure to launch this November, and either don't retake the House, or take it by much leaner margins than they're hoping for. If it's a very small majority of Dems in the House, Trump could try on a bill by bill basis to sway some Democrats to support his initiatives. It would require a level of brinkmanship that Trump hasn't shown much talent for yet, and moderating his message enough to convince moderate Democrats that they have more to gain by some level of cooperation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe, but it's bullshit to say Cronkite was an 'objective journalist'. People just trusted him, never had his 'Dan Rather moment'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I disagree on one point. The US has been subject to false information and outright lies for decades. See the "Pentagon Papers" for an example. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It was a bumbling attempt by inept and unpracticed individuals. They have gotten better at it.
You are 100% correct though, that the filter bubble is the problem. Being a part of a political party in the US includes never admitting your party is wrong, never holding your own leaders accountable, never publicly calling out wrongdoing by your own party, never conceding anything to someone of another party, and always being on the attack. Any system that generates and requires so much animosity, derision, and division to sustain itself cannot be based in logic or reason. That's not political, it's religious, and fanatically so.
As for being critical, I suggest looking from a meta-viewpoint. For instance, one statement I made to my self taught me more about myself, people, and the world around me than any other: "If I want to have one God, I must first have no gods." There were thoughts I couldn't have until I relinquished my belief. Ditching the filter, losing my "sidedness," my horse in the race so to speak, allowed me to see more than I ever imagined.
Similarly, when I decided that I couldn't be a true American until I had no party, it allowed me to look at things in a new way. Things like the Congressional voting record. I started thinking not in terms of rhetoric, but in terms of actions and effects when evaluating the government. When words and deeds disagree, which seems to be the case 100% of the time in American politics, trust deeds. Or, things like political parties completely changing their stance on certain policies over a span of 10 years (sometimes even less!) without even referencing the previous stance or why they are changing. And things like "wedge issues" and "politically correct speech" and what they mean, where they come from, what they are designed for, and their intended result. And things like focus groups run by political parties which create ideas like the afore mentioned wedge issues and politically correct speech, in addition to their largely successful experimental attempts to brute-force reverse-engineer public sentiment.
My conclusions were pretty simple. The "parties" vote as a bloc whenever they can create an excuse to limit, circumvent, or hamstring rights provided to us in the Constitution. They won't hold anyone accountable for fleecing the America people, other than occasionally victimizing those already victimized. They have no qualms about creating division, strife, anger, and hatred among The People. Quite the opposite, their rule is predicated on it, they plan it, create it specifically with sharpened words, fallacious ideas, and emotional appeals which are twisted into faulty logic and motivation. They will use public support for something wonderful, like universal health care, and purposely turn it into a the largest tax hike in history all the while buttressing and reinforcing the unfair system of predatory profit channels that created the public impetus for the change in the first place. They will turn our freedom into a debt which is only repaid when enough of us are in prison.
Sadly, our American sisters and brothers have a political version of Stockholm syndrome. They attack and fight their allies, and lick the hand of those that conspire against them, abuse them, imprison them. They swallow false narratives left and right and ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview at every turn.
Now my party is the American people. There are, in my mind, two parties, or two sides may be a better way to put it. The elected and their moneyed overlords, and The People who vote and pay for everything. The people who are elected don't want you to know they are their own group. They want you to think they are on your side. They want you to think they are your champion, fighting the good fight against the monsters of the other party. Unfortuna
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that this could be taken to mean, "I get my news from memes and random inflammatory posts", which is not what I meant at all. A meme can contain commentary, but certainly not information; only a link to an authoritative source can do that. What I consider my "news" on Facebook generally does come from news organizations (although also from non-profits or other organizations). What I meant was, it's filtered through my friends, rather than an editorial board.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
The Rs and Ds have had an election cheating contest going for living memory.
Neither side can tolerate any daylight on election shenanigans. Which is why they _always_ back off these claims officially, leaving only true believers on both sides wanting real investigations. But it's mutually assured destruction and everybody (over 30) at the DNC and RNC knows it.
The hopeful thing, Trump might _not_ know it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
... Ongoing Political Stupidity By People Who Should Goddam Well Know Better.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Trump broke campaign finance laws. We have tapes proving that in the public domain now.
So we know he is guilty of something, it's just a question of how much. I'm thinking he probably lied about not knowing about his son and campaign manager meeting Russians in his building with his name on it where his campaign was based.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The only reason they might have, but probably didn't, affect the election is because the Dems ran about the only candidate that could lose to Trump in a general election.
That's entirely irrelevant. Even if you totally ignore who the candidates were and which one won, it's still a huge problem that Russia is engaging in such a big campaign to hack and influence our elections.
The fact that phishing was a component of the "hacking" and shitposting was a component of the propaganda campaign doesn't make it any better. That's like saying, "Don't worry that your wife was murdered. It was only stabbing. It's not like she was shot or something!" The precise method isn't at issue. The effect is the problem.
And finally, just as a side note, the Russians almost certainly changed the outcome of the election. Trump won by a few thousand votes in a couple of states. At the level that Russia was campaigning on his behalf, it's very hard to imagine that they didn't saw a few thousand votes in a couple of states.
Ok, I think we agree that the current situation isn't the same as what the American people were contending with a decade or two ago. The Internet and social media have made a bunch of things worse, and I think the problem of deepfakes (or other video forging techniques) is likely to cause some big problems in the future.
I just disagreed that we have no history of being subjected to false information (or outright lies).
I kinda feel compelled to try something like this, for scientific curiosity, of course...
Please don't. Aside from the political strife it's likely to cause, we just don't need any Donald Trump porn in the world, real or fake.
..and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
This is very much a recent (and entirely-artificial meme), as virtually every nation on Earth with an intelligence agency has been doing this de rigueur for a lot fucking longer than the ignorant plebs realize.
You are correct, but please expand on your point. Why does that mean as a country we shouldn't try to counter it or at least expose when it's happening? Analogously, just because thieves have trying to steal private property for ages doesn't mean we shouldn't make people aware of new lines of attack so they can secure themselves.
Public knowledge moves slowly, and I don't think the public generally appreciates, even if it's obvious given some thought, how much astroturfing can take place on new forms of communication.
First, the people who made so much money peddling fake news would and do disagree with that statement. They target conservatives for a reason. They straight up say that trying to target liberal audiences didn't work because it would get fact checked in the comments. If you want me to do the research and find that interview I'll be happy to. I'm sure you'll prefer if someone else verifies that instead of you.
Second, I did not vote for Clinton. Trump voters bought a lie but I didn't get robbed, I knew my candidate wasn't going to win.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence
There might be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance among people who support the Citizens United decision but are upset at Russia. There are certainly a lot of people who are upset about both though.
It really comes down to what's criminal behavior, though. The Supreme Court has already decided that American corporations are free to influence elections. The rules are different for foreign citizens and people working with them.
It would be great if Citizens United was overturned but I don't see that realistically happening.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If Rosenstein committed a crime, why isn't he charged? Also, it's "perjury", not "purgery," and his name is "Rosenstein."
Let me know how to fire Roseinstein and get someone who isn't corrupt into the DOJ and I'll get her charged.
OK. Trump can fire him for any reason or none at all. Congress can also impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which include perjury. So if he actually committed perjury or another crime it should be a pretty easy process. If he hasn't, then it's not as easy. A couple Republicans have already drafted articles of impeachment, but they don't allege perjury. Wonder why. Must be all of those Republicans trying to protect the guy feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Which is weird, because Rosenstein wasn't the deputy AG during the campaign at all. The document he signed, after Trump nominated him, was to extend surveillance of Page, not begin it, and by then the Clinton campaign was dead and cold.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
What I meant by the "no history of being lied to" is, in comparison to dictatorships. Nobody in the former Soviet Union actually believed anything they read in the Pravda. It was a given that they'd lie, embellish and simply tell you whatever you're supposed to hear. These people had pretty good senses when it came to detecting bullshit stories.
Out here in the "free" world it seems we're too used to, or rather, we're too convinced that we have, independent media that may tell the truth and contradict the "official" sources.
The government lies, the media lie. That's the same in dictatorships and democracies. What sets them apart is that in democracies, they tell different lies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Never said he was. I referred only to the Vietnam War as a sham and a farce.
The enemy of my enemy is my...well fuck I don't even care, as long as they take each other out, or one preys on the other.
Not that you asked before putting words in my mouth that I didn't ever say, but the farce and the sham that was the entire buildup to the Vietnam war and the war itself didn't happen over the preceding decades without a ton of help from the news media.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
It's a "huge problem" that's been going on, in some form or another, for pretty much all of human history. it's also a huge problem that is occurring with corporate interests, and that has more actual effects on Americans than foreign interference.
I'm not saying that it's nice or good. But it's routine statecraft.
The precise method is very important. The level of a security breach is important to finding an effective solution. Sure, from a strictly moral sense, it doesn't matter. But from a practical and technical standpoint, low level attacks should be treated differently than sophisticated attacks like Stuxnet. The reality of politics is that we will always face this level of threat from anybody, ally or enemy, so the solution is to train our politicians to be a little less stupid.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's unlikely that the Russian campaign, which is FAR less targeted than political campaigns or Super PACs, influenced the RIGHT few thousand votes. They could have convinced a million voters in Texas, and it would have had no effect. However, I've seen no suggestion that they had any efforts that were particularly effective in swing states.
You've provided a way that it could have happened, but have not provided any evidence that
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There is certainly a legal difference. But from a practical perspective, it's one group of oligarchs vs. another, and their geographical location is largely irrelevant in regards to the people being represented. To the extent to which it does matter, the local oligarchs are a bigger threat, for many of the same reasons that people you know are the most likely to murder you, and why most accidents happen at or near your home.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Was a pawn battle in a larger war. That is all it was.
You should be grateful the Soviet Union is only a bad memory and Vietnam has a healthy capitalist economy, no thanks to Cronkite.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Hillary made me despise her all on her own with her snobby bull and that "deplorables" statement.
How did you experience her behaviour, or hear about her 'deplorables' comment? Was it in person, or was it presented through some reportage?
Where those reporting that behaviour doing so because they noted an uptick in interest from pieces like that? Did they remain 'topical' for longer as a result of manipulation of systems used to judge 'newsworthiness'?
More, it's easier to smear someone than to persuade that someone is worthwhile. Persuading someone to vote for Trump is difficult. Making Hillary a less appealing candidate is easier (and contrariwise - this isn't a comment on the relative worth of either candidate, just the relative ease of shifting opinion).
Influence doesn't work by persuading one individual at a time to change their mind. It's a subtle process that plays numbers, tips balances and frames discourse. If you can add some phrases and soundbites that the already persuaded can use to shut down criticism, so much the better.
But are we supposed to believe that the Russians have some kind of magical powers to sway every single fucking vote? I think not.
This is an argument from incredulity. No one is claiming that they have the power to sway every vote. The argument is that they made an attempt to sway the vote. The degree to which this could be or was successful is another matter entirely, but the way it would work is certainly not your strawman.
It would also be far better if we had actual journalists who knew their shit, instead of 27 year olds who uncritically accept a narrative. I'd expect journalists to all questions, not be simply the extension of the Democrat public affairs office.
We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this.
It will be really fun if they discover it is the a US political party... or some internet tycoon... or an US security agency... or a foreign country considered as an ally...
Because while we're busy fighting amongst ourselves, we're barely paying attention to what our betters are doing in attempts to pass pro-globalist treaties such as the TPP, and laws that turn "fair use" into "fair pay".
That warm, wet feeling on your leg really isn't the Bilderberg elites pissing on you, with all the money that goes towards the NGOs and PACs that actually fuel the activist groups and astroturfing agencies that drive most of the chaos, discord and divisiveness. No, it's Russia making it rain with twitter trolls and facebook ads!
Republicans will find it easy to find the same "possible collusion" between Democrats and agents of China - who now is as desperate to avoid Trump as the Russians were with Clinton - especially if they commission another dossier from a supplicating ally (looking at Australia).
Agents of China buying 100k worth of US social media presence? Pocket change.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Why don't we care about all the other countries and/or intenational groups or individuals that are also attempting the same stuff. Why not a single story that talks about anyone but Russia?
Why not change the subject with a Russian propaganda technique?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The crime being investigated isn't "did Russia cause every voter to vote for Trump". It isn't even "did Russia cause the election to change" (although with the difference in the election being less than 20K votes in 3 medium->large states, there's definitely an argument). It even isn't "did Russia interfere"- we have that answer already. Its "did the Trump organization work with them". If they didn't, then they're free and clear. If they did, then they committed a crime and should be punished for such.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Micheal Flynn. George Popadopolous. Paul Manafort. Two of whom have plead guilty. Popadopolous has admitted he lied before Congress and actually did have illegal contact with the Russians. As has Flynn.
Unless you want to claim his campaign manager, a man named as one of his foreign affairs advisors, and his Nation Security Advisor who worked on his campaign and spoke at his nominating convention have nothing to do with him.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Fusion was initially funded by a Republican. Hiring a foreign company is not illegal. Conspiracy with a foreign government is. Nor is paying foreign nationals for services rendered, like giving information. But working with a foreign government to influence an American election is illegal. This is what's being investigated. Everything you just said is a smoke screen to try to confuse things.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Popadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with a Maltease National alleged to have contacts with Russia.
So no he did not plead guilty to collusion. He plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his contact with Joseph Mifsud, who may or may not have been a Russian agent.
You: "The world isn't perfect, so please don't oppose my crimes!"
Not impressed. Doing my best McKayla Maroney impression.
You can do better than that, ever hear of the Spanish-American war?
Did you have a point?
But what about mosquitoes? And the Hun invasion of Trace? Surely that justifies something or other.
And whatabout the squirrels?! Do you have any idea what sort of naughtiness they're up to?!
A concerted and sustained effort to hack the DNC and Hilary Clinton
DNC and Hillary got hacked so voters voted for Trump. Right, makes complete sense.
The successful hacking of various election systems across the country
What do you mean "election systems" ? Voters ? If voters are hackable, it is already game over for the US. Electronic voting machines ? If EVMs being hacked is proven conclusively and elections are not cancelled for those EVMs , again, game over. You are crying over spilt milk in both the cases.
A massive propaganda campaign that included Facebook and a dozen other sites
Republicans and Democrats did not have a massive propaganda campaign ? Pfizer doesn't have ? PETA had a massive one in its own right, last I checked. There is nothing fundamentally wrong about propaganda campaign.
To influence US elections, it is illegal in the US, but I don't see Facebook being fined $ 2.43 billion. Or an attempt thereof. If such is the gravity of the situation, in a lawsuit hungry country, Facebook should be wiped out many times over. So actually this lack of a wrist slap for Facebook is some evidence that there is no gravity of the situation - Americans know that Americans are idiots. On the other hand, it is fun blaming someone.
Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
If they can, the US is a failed state anyway. Then, what is a big deal if they did ?
And if so, the US should hack Russian elections, why don't you , or why didn't you ? If you did, to make Putin the Lord Almighty of Russia again, more power to you.
Or their voters are not idiot enough to get hacked ? And their "election systems" are designed much much better so as to be unhackable by a dozen times bigger economy ? Is there a lesson to be learned by the US other than blaming Russia here ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
No way. "FB" chooses it, and makes it appear to you that you are choosing it.
"FB" can feed different things to different people. "Mainstream media" usually cannot - and if it develops that capability then it is also beginning to become dangerous. Using targeted communication, opinions can be swayed seriously over time if a sustained intelligent campaign is continued. Even if not "swayed" - they would be pushed to extreme ends of their spectrum in "FB"'s quest for your attention.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
DNC and Hillary got hacked so voters voted for Trump. Right, makes complete sense.
Russia hacked the DNC and selectively released damaging information. They did not do the same thing against the Republicans. That gave the Republicans an advantage which probably swayed a number of votes. The Russians also got into voter registrations. We haven't really gotten the full story there yet, but there are reports that they may have altered some voter information, making it harder for some people to vote. They also had a massive misinformation campaign, which surely swayed some votes.
What do you mean "election systems" ? Voters ? If voters are hackable, it is already game over for the US... You are crying over spilt milk in both the cases.
So your argument here is basically, "Democracy is over and our country is screwed, so why are you complaining?" Great. That makes a lot of sense.
Republicans and Democrats did not have a massive propaganda campaign?
A political campaign isn't as bad as deliberately misleading voters. A private US political organization trying to mislead voters is also not as bad as an intelligence agency, a bunch of spies, using their expertise as spies to mislead voters. A bunch of US spies trying to mislead voters is again probably not as bad as spies from a hostile foreign government trying to mislead US voters.
So yeah, insofar as the DNC is trying to mislead voters, that's bad. I'd condemn it. And if the CIA were trying to rig our election, I'd think that was very bad indeed. But having the modern equivalent of the KGB rigging our election is an extreme situation.
Your argument is just more whataboutism. It's Jeffrey Dahmer saying, "Yeah, I got caught raping and and eating people, but what about that guy who got caught jaywalking?! We both broke the law, but you're letting him go with a slap on the wrist!" It's not the same thing.
If they can, the US is a failed state anyway. Then, what is a big deal if they did?
What's the big deal if the US is a failed state? Wow, you sound like a true patriot there. I mean, by that logic, you could argue, "Who cares if North Korea and Iran get nuclear weapons? The US is a complete failed state, so we should just surrender to ISIS and let them take over. What's the big deal?"
It's a "huge problem" that's been going on, in some form or another, for pretty much all of human history.
Murder has been going on, in some form or another for pretty much all of human history. So why worry about murder? Give me any problem, and I'll argue that it's been happening in some form or another for pretty much all of human history, so why worry about anything?
The reality of politics is that we will always face this level of threat from anybody, ally or enemy, so the solution is to train our politicians to be a little less stupid.
Let me guess, you also think that the solution to rape is to "stop dressing so provocatively"? The solution to school shootings is, "step sending your kids to schools, which is where all these shootings keep happening!"
They could have convinced a million voters in Texas, and it would have had no effect. However, I've seen no suggestion that they had any efforts that were particularly effective in swing states.
There's actually evidence that they were targeting swing states, both in their hacking and their social media campaigns. It's impossible to really know how much of an effect that we have, especially when the President is stonewalling investigations and attempts to increase security. I wonder why he would do that?
You do understand there are political cycles here. After all, a decade ago the Republicans lost control of the White House and Congress.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nobody in the former Soviet Union actually believed anything they read in the Pravda. It was a given that they'd lie, embellish and simply tell you whatever you're supposed to hear. These people had pretty good senses when it came to detecting bullshit stories.
Yes, but arguably, what we're suffering from is sort of the opposite problem. In Soviet Russia, people didn't believe the big important newspaper because it was full of bullshit. In America now, people don't believe the big important newspaper because they think it's full of bullshit, but it's actually more or less telling the truth.
Apparently, this was a strategy that Putin and his people helped develop, where they undermine trust in everything. They know you won't believe the state-controlled news, so they instead get you to think that the independent news is also lying just the same, and that neither is really better or worse. Because then people start thinking they're independent thinkers who can't be fooled, which actually makes them more susceptible to manipulation. Or for the people they can't manipulate as easily, the whole process is so fatiguing that they eventually give up and stop paying attention.
Campaign finance law requires disclosure. That's why questions about Cohen's paying off Daniels is an issue. If he spent money, even his own money, to get rid of a problem that gave Trump benefit during the campaign, that is a campaign contribution, and has to be declared.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Since Slashdot didn't put at least two submissions on the topic, for your perusal:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned or do anything about it, but I'm also not clutching my pearls, especially when there isn't a productive solution being proposed.
Nope. Just a slashdotter with at least an ounce of pride, and less than total naivete regarding the intelligence community. If someone within the top ranks of a presidential campaign falls for such low-level phishing, they are not qualified for the position. The world absolutely will not play nice at that level, and they will get others hurt.
It's impossible to tell, and the actual memes themselves were C-tier 4chan material used with considerably less granularity than the much more well-funded legitimate campaigns, but we should, of course, assume that it had a major effect, even though not a single meme posted was remotely aimed at any kind of conversion.
You've got blinders on that make you incapable of actually thinking, so instead, you are just regurgitating rationales without considering whether the people making them are morons, biased, or both.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You did not answer the important points, and misinterpreted most of the points that you did address.
1. If it is such a big deal, why is zuckerberg not in jail ?
2. If it is so easy to hijack elections, why don't you do it for an country with 1/12th the size of US economy ?
I am not a patriot, but that wouldn't be towards the US anyway.
And no, it's not whataboutism. I just proved that fundamentally there is nothing wrong with propaganda. I even followed with the illegality of foreign propaganda in elections : but addressing that would have forced you to answer why the US is not doing anything to Facebook. We can't have that, can we ? Answering relevant points is so un-American.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I'm not failing to address or misrepresenting your points. You're just not making sense. I'm not 100% sure if you're arguing in bad faith, or simply dimwitted, so I'll address your two points more directly:
1. Because it wouldn't really make sense for Zuckerberg to go to jail for Russia's espionage. That'd be like putting the head of United Airlines in jail for the 9/11 attacks. Not only it this whataboutism, but it's a really poor, stupid version of it.
2. What election do you want me personally to interfere with, and why? Because I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I'm not an intelligence agency and don't have the resources of one. I also don't particularly approve of meddling in other countries elections, and don't want the US government to be doing that. Also, I don't see that there should be a relationship between the size of the economy and the ease of fixing the election. If you're referring to Russia, for example, it's much harder to fix an election when it's a sham election run by a dictator who stuffs ballot boxes and murders political opponents. Relatively honest elections in less corrupt societies are easier to sway.
I am not a patriot, but that wouldn't be towards the US anyway.
Great, so not only are you spouting irrelevant nonsense and bad arguments, but you don't even have any interest in the entities involved. That sounds like a great reason for our discussion to end here.
Unfortunately it seems like journalists are a dying breed. The old guard hasn't seemed to really be replaced by people with their same skill set. I don't know what journalism schools teach, but it doesn't look like investigative journalism is one of the things, or at least that's not what the graduates choose to do.
There are depressingly few actual investigative journalists left. I can think of Brian Krebs as a good example, and it sounds like Bob Woodward is still doing his thing, but it feels like a "journalist" today is someone who tells someone else what they read about.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Are you paid shill, a Russian spy, or just a terrible person with no judgement?
I'd actually like to know, but obviously I can't trust whatever answer you give, and it's so hard to tell these days. I'm just going to assume that, in any case, you're not worth talking to.
I also don't particularly approve of meddling in other countries elections, and don't want the US government to be doing that.
I love that when the US suddenly discover their morals when confronted with an opponent who can kick their ass. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (as long as they don't really have WMD) are all fair game. The US citizens really approve of killing humans in those fair game countries.
Classic school bully.
Anyway, you suddenly changed your allegation to "espionage" instead of influencing / "got into"/ hacked / altered / misinformation campaign (including on Facebook). So yes, discussion ended some posts ago, though your dodging continues.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I'm definitely a terrible person, but my judgment is probably better than yours. You feel the need to call people who disagree with you Russian trolls, so you are not likely to be able carry on a constructive agreement. I think we are in mutual agreement about the likelihood of this being a worthwhile conversation, so kindly fuck off and die.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Look, I 100% support "an appropriate response." To me, an appropriate response would consist of the following:
1. Basic security training for all major campaigns.
2. Tightening up the security of voting infrastructure.
3. Hacking/Leaking the correspondence of every dictator in the world, Putin included.
However, I don't think any of those have been given serious effort. The closest is MS's offers of help, but that's more PR than anything else.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm going to put more faith in a magic 8-ball than the US intelligence community, especially if it's information being released to the public.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm wrong about lots of things and for sure don't see the whole picture, ever. That being said, I won't be like a die hard A&M fan screaming "That's a foul!" at the TV, then watching the super-slow-motion replay from 5 angles showing that it was not, in fact, a foul. Nor will I grumble to myself after unmistakable proof that I was wrong is presented: "Well the refs are in the tank for the other team."
From what I have experienced personally, and from what I see constantly, "sidedness" is all the excuse people need to mistreat the truth, to hold on to unfounded accusations against entire groups of people, to bring a preset mental framework into a situation where it doesn't apply, and to falsely attribute a mindset to other people they are on "opposite" "sides" from.
The result of all of that baggage is usually predictable. If someone on one side meets someone on the other side they end up throwing other people's talking points at each other, placing blame on this person or that party as directed by their "leaders," and completely talking past each other. Neither can back down, de-escalate, or talking stick themselves into a position where they really listen to the other person. Learning why something is important to someone else is never discussed, only the wrongdoings and past hurts matter. Getting where they are coming from is the last thing on the list of things to do when they encounter someone they feel is the opposition.
People like Daryl Davis and Dylan Marron are some good examples of what can happen when you put away the talking points and sidedness and just talk to people like human beings. Doesn't mean they are right or wrong. I just prefer their results.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Silly me.
I misinterpreted the headline "Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign" as Facebook has been identified has having been carrying out a political influence campaign.
They wouldn't do such a thing, now would they?
No more than Twitter would.
OK, that may not have been the best way to put it.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Because the singular focus on Trump and Russia is not about electoral intergrity. It's flag waving pageantry to explain how the "perfect" candidate lost to an orange manchild.
There'll be superficial efforts by Facebook that will probably amount to giving the right oligarchs a ban hammer. There's be action by there government that ends up being mostly handing money to contractors for security theater, and maybe replacing Windows XP voting machines.
Effective means of protecting our democracy would end up protecting our citizens from foreign and domestic interference by government or corporations. That's where you can have a security model. But if you leave a backdoor for one group of oligarchs, it's going to be security by obscurity, and that's a horrible defense against people and organizations who have lots of resources and few legal consequences for their actions.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.