Slashdot Mirror


To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections, Russian Internet Trolls Amplify Divisive Messages, Assemble 'Massive' Followings (time.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: Russian internet trolls appear to be shifting strategy in their efforts to disrupt the 2020 U.S. elections, promoting politically divisive messages through phony social media accounts instead of creating propaganda themselves, cybersecurity experts say. The Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency may be among those trying to circumvent protections put in place by companies including Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to find and remove fake content that hackers created to sow division among the American electorate in the 2016 presidential campaign. "Instead of creating content themselves, we see them amplifying content," said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at FireEye Inc. "Then it's not necessarily inauthentic, and that creates an opportunity for them to hide behind somebody else."

Other hackers are breaking into computing devices and using them to open large numbers of social media accounts, according to Candid Wueest, a senior threat researcher at Symantec Corp. The hacked devices are used to create many legitimate-looking users as well as believable followers and likes for those fake users... Wueest said he observed a decrease in the creation of new content by fake accounts from 2017 to 2018 and a shift toward building massive followings that could be used as platforms for divisive messages in 2020.

Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy responded that policing foreign influence campaigns is "an incredibly hard balance" between the need to slow down bad actors while maintaining "meaningful public discussion."

331 comments

  1. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections, UK Slashdot Editors Amplify Divisive Slashdot Posts, Assemble 'Massive' Followings

    1. Re:Hypocrisy by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad they put "meaningful public discussion" inside air-quotes.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re: Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're a paid troll, then please find the nearest toilet facility and drown yourself in the bowl.
      If you're a confused American who has been self-identifying as "conservative", you really need to stop for a moment. If you give a shit about the viability of America, then take a step back and see what far left/right ideologies have brought us. The country crumbles more and more each election cycle. This is happening exactly as hostile countries want it to. If you align with *some* conservative viewpoints, then I get it, so do I. But that doesn't mean I throw all the rest of my beliefs out the window and "pick a side". Have some integrity, call-out your conservative friends who are destroying the fabric of freedom.

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

      Right, because screaming "fuck white people!" was really a Russian scheme, and not a fundamental position of the Democrat party.

      I voted straight Democrat my entire life, until I read the Washington Post article titled, "Why Hillary Doesn't Need White Men." with a picture of her laughing.

      It was that moment that I flipped to "anything but these assholes." which happened to be Trump.

  2. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those in power are just jealous they no longer have the monopoly that they were never ment to have in the first place.

    Remember that cornerstone of American Democracy? The "better educated voter"? No? You should.

    1. Re:Yawn by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 0

      We can't have discussions like that if it involves Hillary missing 'her turn' yet another time.

      Really, in this fractured primary climate, who can unify The Party more than Ms. Clinton herself?

  3. Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Quakeulf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in Norway. Russia is my neighbour. I have been to both USA and Russia. I see both as friends, and none as enemies. I don't get why these allegations should result in nuclear war (it seems that this is the goal of those who want to drive Russia against USA). If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election. Exploits will be exploits, regardless.

    1. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.

      Fact is that people are so busy fracturing society into groups by defining common enemies and lumping enough people in them through strawmen arguments to make it look like an issue to be concerned about...

      I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.

    2. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Quakeulf · · Score: 2
    3. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.

      Now you know why those leftist ideologies are represented by the youth of today. It takes an incredible amount of energy and ignorance to sustain being offended all day, every day.

    4. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel.

    5. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps the truth is that Russia really is meddling in the elections, or at least in public opinion. It's a time honoured tactic of many dictators aspiring to a larger role on the world stage (Erdogan employs similar tactics, for instance)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Just as they are doing right now in Brazil, when you want to force an unpopular government or a dictatorship into power, you just have to invent an imaginary enemy, internal or external, and then present your government/dictatorship as a "solution" against this imaginary enemy.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    7. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps the truth is that Russia really is meddling in the elections, or at least in public opinion.

      Or perhaps truth is its the democrats who are trying to make everyone believe no one would support Trump if they weren't brainwashed.. Well, it isn't working.

    8. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yep, sad. Democrats lost so they made up Imaginary Russian bots! They made up Imaginary Russian Collusion, and made up all sorts of hateful things like there's Nazi's everywhere and Trump and his followers are racist and any other foul things against the other side. It's serious derangement. I don't remember the Republicans acting out so badly like that when Obama was pres but I'm sure it happened then to some degree too. The left wants to act like they are smarter with less hate and all but in practice it seems just the opposite. We're seeing the left's true colors. I'm surprised they have even gone further to approving and advocating socialism and even communism. It's like they went deranged and are doubling and tripling down on that derangement. The media hates the pres and is so wanting to impeach the Pres that they are even willing to brainwash their viewers about it even though there's nothing to impeach him for. It has really been a circus since Trump became president and I'm glad I have butter for my popcorn. Watching youtube videos about nonsense has been a laugh but really I'd rather the nation be back to normal and removing Trump and putting a Democrat pres in won't do it. Dems have to realize they will need to fix themselves before this mess will be fixed. I have doubt it will be fixed on its own. Imaginary enemies do not disappear and derangement needs a doctor. Come quickly Jesus!

    9. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by ilguido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english? I suppose that they are... mmh... doing stuff or something. Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"? Is Israel? What about corporations? Government agencies?

      It's McCarthy all over again.

    10. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election.

      The point is, the people who usually fix the elections didn't get their result last time around. They're mad as hell, and they're not taking it anymore.

    11. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      You need psychiatric help...

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    12. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      It's more an instance of shrill denial. They've managed to brainwash themselves into believing it to be impossible for there to be a President Trump other than through chicanery. The 'grassroots' can't handle the fact that things don't go their way. AstroTurf is too fucking expensive for it to go so badly.

    13. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by andydread · · Score: 1

      Russia is making themselves the enemy by hacking into maliciously hacking foreign elections. US, British, French, maybe they will hack Norway's elections, Maybe they have already been doing it and installed someone friendly in Norway to keep Norway under there sphere of influence

    14. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Of course they do, as a payback for the 1990s. Doesn't mean that some people don't try really hard to create a new cold war for fun and profit since they can't bomb Iraq anymore.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    15. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Political parties who can't win elections due to their own low quality candidates.
      NGO's with a political view to spread looking for funding.
      NATO looking for funding.
      Clandestine services looking for larger budgets.
      Energy interests looking to block the flow of lower cost energy from Russia.
      People selling security products and services.
      Groups pushing for censorship and control over the internet.
      To position funny cartoons, comments as "fake accounts".
      People who now want a political test for art, jokes, cartoons, comments, accounts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    16. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany... The goal is to weaken the west by taking advantage of our open and free societies where we try to give everyone a voice.

      The internet was supposed to enhance democracy by creating a more level playing field, a meritocracy of ideas. It doesn't work though, people in Russia whose job is to spend all day every day posting carefully designed messages and memes have a much louder, more influential voice than random citizens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trotsky-slut DemoRats are desperate for any lever to use against THEDONALD. This Russian-troll BS is just another pack of lies. Should I sm ash Pelosi/AOC/Mujad/Schumer faces break their neez make them bleed each time they pea .... well ofcourse I should ... as should any yeoman patriot ... smash their Quisling thought-crime distorted faces ! No Russian prompting required.

    18. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's true. FOX news is never offended and never offends. It is all Christmas and sunshine if it wasn't for those meddling leftists. Fortunately,it is likely you are referencing neoliberals while proudly clapping your hands for neoconservatism not realizing they are the same coin that represents the oligarchy and you don't mean shit, either.

    19. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China, actually.

    20. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the meddling in the elections is less about hacking voting machines and creating fake results and more about exploiting social media to distort public opinion.

      As long as we have the toxic combination of mendacious for-profit social media companies, it will be trivial to disrupt public opinion. Both platforms make money from this and neither one wants to impose controls that limit user speech or cut ad revenue.

      There's no defense against that "exploit" unless Facebook or Twitter is forcefully regulated in some manner. The only regulation I can think of that would have a chance would be forcing Facebook to clearly and unambiguously identify all posts associated with politics and any kind of commercial profit by Facebook as political advertising.

      I also think there's some higher order synergism between Facebook and Twitter -- Twitter allows for easy widespread public outrage, while Facebook allows that outrage to be personalized for greater individual impact. I sometimes wonder if either would be less effective as a propaganda platform without the other.

      Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.

    21. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNC holds impeachment vote 2 months into Trumps term, articles state "we don't like him" no crimes listed
      DNC is currently writing up new articles of impeachment to be voted on within the month, no crimes listed again

      Yea, the DNC appears to be attempting to destabilize the West just like Russia wants. Maybe they should stop taking orders from Putin?

    22. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh I'm sure that Russia is meddling in the elections here. Just like every non-American with Internet access and an opinion on Trump/Clinton chipped in their 2 cents. Just like the U.S. meddles in elections elsewhere. People talk to each other, it's a fact of life. And in the Internet age that means they'll talk across national boundaries, even about stuff that they're technically not supposed to be talking about.

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion, or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.

    23. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Archtech · · Score: 0

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west.

      "Trying to destabilize the West" would be like trying to make the ocean wet.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    24. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fix your election"

      Not sure what definition of "fix" you really mean, here ;-)

    25. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but he was at least right about the first bit, how the Democrats have been making shit up about Russian bots.

      After the false flag in Alabama, no news about "Russian bots" from the Democrats can be trusted. They didn't just shoot themselves in the foot, they blew their whole damn leg off.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html

    26. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Facebook profits, more time spent on their site. YouTube profits, more time spent watching cranks instead of the real news.

      Russia profits of course, from a weaker West and NATO.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Archtech · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yea, the DNC appears to be attempting to destabilize the West just like Russia wants. Maybe they should stop taking orders from Putin?

      Actually, the evidence I have seen suggests they are taking orders from Poroshenko.

      "DNC denies working with Ukrainian government, but contractor floated anti-Trump material"
      https://edition.cnn.com/2017/0...

      "Robert Mueller’s ’13 Russian trolls indictment’ is a COPY + PASTE job from 2015 Ukrainian Radio Free Europe post"
      http://theduran.com/busted-rob...

      Oh, and for good measure:

      "Exclusive! Yanks To The Rescue. The Secret Story Of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win"
      https://img.timeinc.net/time/m...

      'Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian "Democratic Institutions"'
      http://www.informationclearing...

      And:

      "When Will the US Stop Organizing Foreign Coups?"
      https://russia-insider.com/en/...

      "Here's the short list of U.S.-backed coups over just the past seven-plus decades . . .

              Syria 1949.
              Guatemala 1954.
              Tibet 1955-1970s.
              Indonesia 1958.Cuba 1959.
              Iraq 1960-1963.
              Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960-1965.
              Dominican Republic 1962.
              Iran 1963.
              Guatemala 1963.
              South Vietnam 1963.
              Brazil 1964.
              Ghana 1966.
              Chile 1970-1973.
              Argentina 1976.
              Afghanistan 1979-1989.
              Turkey 1980.
              Poland 1980-1989.
              Ecuador 1981.
              Panama 1981.
              Nicaragua 1981-1990.
              Grenada 1983.
              Haiti 1991.
              Iraq 1992-1996.
              Venezuela 2002.
              Haiti 2004.
              Iran 2005-present.
              Honduras 2009.
              Libya 2011.
              Syria 2012-present.
              Ukraine 2014.

      "Moreover, it's no secret that we're at it again right now with Venezuela, and a poorly-kept secret that Russia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Bolivia, probably another shot at Cuba, and recently added Kyrgyzstan, are also in the queue".

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    28. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.

      From the conspiracy theorist's perspective, that's the whole point. If you get everybody pissed off in several directions at once they have less energy available to fight for any given cause. A distracted, divided populace is much easier to manipulate and much less likely to rebel effectively - it's called "divide and conquer".

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    29. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Quakeulf · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of shit getting upvoted here. Why do you want a war so bad?

    30. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the United States who had meddled in the internal politics of many countries in the post WW2 era. The irony of our outrage cannot be overlooked.

    31. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention close to half the ads in that "campaign" had nothing to do with the election or were released after the election. It was really just a grab bag of various online trolling by that organization "linked" to Putin.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    32. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, sorry, concerted government action is different from individual comments. The one is free thinking and the other is not.

      Most people can tell the difference, which is why the secrecy and manipulation to appear otherwise by these subversive operatives.

      One penny spent on it is anathema. An actual American who remembered their history would understand that.

      Your attempts to dismiss the problems are only showing your own malignancy.

      Why do you want them to get away with it?

    33. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      People voting all over the USA and UK got the results they wanted.
      Messages and memes are part of the freedom the USA protects for people to share cartoons, art, culture and funny memes.
      Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech.
      Should a NGO, brand, gov, think tank, academic get to stop funny art? Stop a fun cartoon? Stop a funny meme?
      Should Germany get to ban history, art and cartoons?
      Should Spain get to block comments?
      Should China get to say what Taiwan can publish?
      Who gets to say what is going to "enhance democracy"? A think tank? An expert? A political group? NATO? an EU bureaucrat, someone from a university? The person who sets a code of conduct for their brand?
      Someone from Germany? France? Spain? A cult? A religious group? Communist China?
      Why should the internet now get a political test for art and what is funny?

      How about users who are paying for their ISP get to use the internet to search for, share and LOL at things they want to :)
      Its their internet to enjoy as they are paying for the internet.
      Its their cartoons, memes, art to publish and share. Its their time to search for anything they want. Their links and comments to publish and share.
      Their ideas to enjoy with others on any topic they want.
      Thats what US freedoms protect from censorship.
      The freedom of the press. The freedom to publish. The freedom to read and comment on what is interesting. What is funny. What is creative.
      To stay free after publishing. Not needing a governments permission to comment, to publish. To be a journalist and publish any story.
      Not to risk the tools of publication after publication in the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    34. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is basically amping it up. Instead of turning people against an imaginary enemy, they are turning people against each other. If they are busy fighting over the latest trump-tweet or sjw nonsense then they are much less likely to unite and demand changes to their flawed political system.

      As an outsider, i recognize that this is done on multiple levels by pretty much all of the US actors. You dont need russian or anyone else to do it - just check any major news outlets webpage and youll find multiple articles and op-eds designed to sow discord. These, alongside social media bubbles constantly turning what are basically non-issues in most of the world into super divisive heated topics. Some say its all in the name of getting clicks and ad revenue - but i strongly believe that this is done for the effect it has on society. Sadly, actors outside of the US have begun to adopt these tactics too.

      I realize that this has been a slippery slope for americans since the 1828 election, but even though politicians refuse to uphold a standard civility and reason doesnt mean that you, the people, shouldnt.

    35. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by mlw4428 · · Score: 2

      The problem is a fundamental weakness in Democracy: people. With the expectation of a reasonable IQ, proof of education, and a nuance understanding of the issues facing a nation, the voters are at the mercy of others who they seek to summarize and highlight key issues that are deemed important to those voters. There's nothing wrong that, most people don't have the time/desire/energy/basic intelligence to dedicate themselves towards understanding the thousands of local, state, national, and geopolitical issues. They rely on news sources to condense that information. That's NOT bad. What's bad is a foreign power actively working to falsify information to attack that news source.

      "But the US does it." You're right. We do. Generally towards weak and unstable regions who may have regional influences, but nothing major. Russia is actively engaged in doing this to the EU, the UK, America, Canada, and the Nordic regions. This is meant to destabilize the Western powers entirely. Russia has an interest in causing chaos so that they can continue to annex and invade sovereign nations in their region. People will end up dying from this, civilians and those who wish to remain separate from Russia. And that's the difference. The US does this because the US's interests are more trade, less terrorism, or some combinations therein. It's selfish, sure, but nothing quite like destabilizing an entire hemisphere of geopolitical players simply so you can annex more shitholes in Eastern Europe.

    36. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "New Knowledge".

      These ex NSA employees created a 'product' that is supposed to protect social media from 'russian propaganda'.

      New Knowledge are the source of the 'Russian Bots interfering with the election" stories cited by the US Media.,

      Turns out that New Knowledge were also the ones running the bots.

      The whole narrative of Russia interfering is just a bunch of scumbags trying to make a buck, and a media trying to distract yo from the contents of Hillary's emails that showed she was rigging the election in the DNC, and her involvement with ISIS/ISIL as a tool of state department regime change.

    37. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west.

      It really doesn't concern me. The US has meddled far too much in South America and the Middle East. Several European nations have had their colonial fun all over the world. People trying to gain influence and control over as much as they can is a tale as old as time. You whinging about it on the internet isn't going to stop it before the Earth stops spinning.

      The internet was supposed to enhance democracy by creating a more level playing field, a meritocracy of ideas. It doesn't work though, people in Russia whose job is to spend all day every day posting carefully designed messages and memes have a much louder, more influential voice than random citizens.

      Um, no. The Internet was created primarily for military communications de-centralization. The history and development isn't a big secret you know. That you think it was created to promote democracy and meritocracy says more about you and your beliefs than anything else. As an aside, the GPS system is also a military system under military control and wasn't created at great expense just for the warm fuzzies of having cars tell people when to turn.

      The simple solution to limit the influence of "Russian Trolls" (or any other flavor, including main stream media wholly-owned by the ruling elite) is simply to ignore them. If stupid people on the bookface or twatter want to endlessly repeat stupid things, fine. I don't pay attention to any of it and it doesn't influence me in the slightest.

      Even the stupid people will eventually figure out they've been lied to from all sides.

    38. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany.

      Nuke me from orbit if you like, but the dirty little secret is that Russia has NOTHING to do with the blow-back that is anti-immigration from shit-hole nations into the West. FACT!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    39. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      You stink of potato vodka

    40. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like every non-American with Internet access and an opinion on Trump/Clinton chipped in their 2 cents.

      Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I'm pretty sure most non-Americans expressed their opinions by posting using their own accounts, not by running a massive astroturf campaign on the scale that no one other than China or Russia is known to run. But maybe I'm wrong, and that's just a cultural difference in how non-Americans do internet comments.

    41. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      You are currently responding to an ivan bot.

    42. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Who gets to say what is going to "enhance democracy"?

      Someone has to. Someone has to design the democratic systems we use, decide on the format and the rules.

      By the way, demanding that it stays the same and never change because you ad-hom'ed the person proposing he change is just as oppressive and authoritarian as demanding that it does change. Like all things democratic, it's the process and the ability to participate that counts.

      Personally I think that an informed population enhances democracy. Disinformation is a direct attack on it. Of course you will now ask who gets to decide what is disinformation and what is true, so I'll tell you now. There is no perfect solution, all we can do is try to encourage journalists to do their jobs and make it harder for people deliberately trying to spread disinformation with as few side-effects as possible, e.g. by requiring publications to be correctly and prominently attributed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    43. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amimojo is not an American. Maybe she's trying to meddle in the elections?

    44. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by bonedonut · · Score: 1

      The same people that benefitted during the original Cold War. Having an 'outside threat' helps keep United States citizens in line and focused(on other things besides the guys who are making off with all of their money). The 'War on Terror' was being used for this, but has lost most of its steam, so the idea is to kick start a new Cold War with the same old enemy- it worked so well for so long.

    45. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "There is no perfect solution"
      Thats why the USA has that great system of allowing publication, comments and freedom of speech.
      Who gets to say what is "correctly and prominently attributed" to what standard?
      A think tank? NGO? NATO? Germany? China? A person with ideas about a code of conduct? A faith group?
      Everyone will have ideas for what is an approved "publication" once any censorship is allowed.
      Freedom of speech lets everyone have the ability to publish and enjoy other peoples ideas, cartoons, memes, art, music, culture, faith.
      No need to wait for a cult, NATO, NGO, think tank, university, expert, Communist party, gov, mil, brand, bank, CC company, publisher to approve :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    46. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned with the way CNN exploits media to distort public opinion. A lot more people pay attention to that garbage than twatter.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    47. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course every country tries to troll and meddle in every other country - its a battlefield out there - are you that naive to think otherwise? But such trolling can only succeed in countries weakened through too much shit happening and bad living standards for ordinary people.

      Ouch.... :)

    48. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There's no defense against that "exploit"

      Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.

      I designed a defense specifically against this.

      Let's say you have two political philosophies: Liberal and Conservative. They're diametrically-opposed, and adherents carry them to various degrees.

      In a one-vote system or an approval system, you get two parties. Ranked systems can also raise two parties, but there's less need. The two-plus system appears because of damage in these systems: the candidate with the strongest favor--not the majority favor--wins.

      With majority-runoff and instant runoff voting, this occurs in early rounds and runs down to a later round, so candidates with the strongest non-majority favor advance while strong consensus candidates are eliminated early. I've actually published crude methods to manipulate IRV (the most common ranked choice voting method) to precision-select a candidate by adding a third candidate and campaigning to eliminate the original winner in the penultimate round, selecting the original loser (the third candidate can't beat the loser, but can make the winner the lowest vote-getter in the three-way round).

      Okay, that sounds like we could change to a Condorcet system; but that's not quite enough.

      A Condorcet system eliminates the IRV/Plurality problem. Condorcet systems are frequently manipulable; Tideman's Alternative is almost-certainly non-manipulable (its resistance in practice is near 100% because you need more votes to manipulate it under any failure mode than you do to legitimately win).

      Party primaries, however, provide a huge problem.

      Because of the aforementioned liberal-conservative divide into two parties, we have what amounts to a top-two system with severe distortions. Top-two is itself horribly broken (it has the plurality flaw with a nonpartisan blanket primary on plurality, and by IRV/STV it nominates two wildly-biased candidates not fitting the overall consensus).

      The most-severe distortion is the primary itself. Base voters--people who vote straight party--don't have any marginal utility for primary voting. That means activist voters--people well away from the consensus and moderate positions--drive the primary.

      With 40% hard-right, 29% moderate-right, and 31% liberal voters, you'd think that the 40% hard-right would drive the Republican primary. The problem is with 20% hard-right, 49% moderate-right, and 31% liberal, you'll probably actually see 15% hard-right and 10% moderate-right voters get out in the primary. Obviously, the 69% of Republican voters carry the General Election.

      If that sounds fanciful, think about this: a propaganda campaign can excite your activists and move more people to the activist camp, getting a bigger turn-out for your polarized candidate in the primary.

      There's your exploit.

      Use the defect of the party primary to select an extreme.

      In the general election, you just have to lift base voters and tilt a minority of swing voters. That's all. You do that, you've hand-selected a candidate.

      So what's the weakness of this exploit?

      Primary Weakness: it requires manipulation of a small subset of the population.

      It's a weak attack. It's fragile. It can't succeed if it needs a major shift.

      The fix is called Unified Majority.

      First, let's add another consideration about Ranked Choice Voting: people reliably rank to six candidates; the number of ballots ranking seven or more candidates is much smaller than the number ranking six.

      Unified Majority replaces the Party Primary with a nonpartisan blanket primary run via STV. For single-seat elections, Unified Majority no

    49. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a very useful definition of "meddling". By this definition, someone who is an American but can't vote (e.g. has a felony is their past), and expresses a political opinion, is meddling.

      every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns

      The things the Russians are accused of wouldn't be tolerated in American campaigns. That's actually one of the points of the Mueller investigation - if the Russians were working for the Trump campaign is did do some of the things that have been discussed, then someone is going to jail.

    50. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably critical bug fixes, like fixing bullshit overflow and fixing of wealth leaks. remember to always free the unused wealth or wealth corruption can happen ;-)

    51. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english? I suppose that they are... mmh... doing stuff or something. Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"? Is Israel? What about corporations? Government agencies? It's McCarthy all over again.

      Well, it's a scary sounding word (for those too young to remember Scooby Doo, lol) that conveniently doesn't require any actual laws to be broken or for that to be proven in a court of law.

      Roosky gang: "Now let's see who this witch really is!"

      Roosky gang: "Hillary????"

      Hillary: "And it would have worked too, if it weren't for you meddling Rooskies!"

    52. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      That's a great fix, but it's along the lines of saying we need to rewrite the entire code base to solve the problem. It's technically correct -- I agree 100% percent that the electoral system, especially the primaries, are broken in major ways.

      But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.

      Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controlled by Democrats, so switching didn't imperil party control of the elected offices, and only boiled down to making party insiders' choices slightly more at risk. Switching was aided by a fairly long-term trend of rising progressives who both supported the change and were wresting control.

      The net result has kind of been kind of a combo platter of primary meets runoff election, with unendorsed Democrats still running in the general election because of the lack of certainty as to how ranked choice selections will fare (as it should be).

    53. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Just asking "who?" is not an argument, it's an admission that you don't have a viable plan for a democracy.

      No democracy has absolute freedom of speech. Someone always has to decide where the limits are. In the US it was the Supreme Court, e.g. "true threats" and libel laws.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    54. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the truth is AIPAC and zionists don't like competition.

    55. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      The mainstream media contributes, but these days its kind of a social media amplifier. I'm continually amazed at how much media time is devoted to talking heads promoting and debating what was said on Twitter.

    56. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only ones interested in even bringing up nuclear war out of the blue are the Russians. That's because the leftover nuclear arsenal is one powerful leftover artifact of the Soviet Union that the third world hellhole backwater that is Russia still has. Russia is a syphilitic weakling with a magic button left from a bygone age. So seeing some ridiculous "wants to drive Russia to nuclear war" nonsense pop up out of the blue clearly identifies Pravda levels of Russian manipulation whether directly or through witless fool.

    57. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      *their

    58. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      All of that chaos though mostly comes from being able to dive people into groups. Humans are pretty tribal creatures. "Othering" each other is about as natural as breathing to that end Putnum and others are correct; diversity and inclusion are really not of value to society. They basically reduce our ability to trust one another. Which means rather then a cohesive community we have a population permanently on edge that is easily swayed by the next thing the read online.

      You can have Democracy, Multiculturalism, or Free speech; pick any two.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    59. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.

      No they won't. Well, the Republicans will.

      The Democrats in power in Baltimore and in Maryland seem to resist change of which they are uncertain. Undermining their party power base is not a large concern; political fall-out--that the change has unintended consequences which make their voters angry--has heavier weight. They're all loss-averse and vulnerable to other typical human cognitive flaws, so they hyperfocus on such things.

      Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controlled by Democrats, so switching didn't imperil party control of the elected offices, and only boiled down to making party insiders' choices slightly more at risk.

      The Instant Runoff Voting switch actually leaves the election vulnerable to some manipulation. Tideman's Alternative isn't.

      Generally, if your party has more than 50% of the voting base, it has control. That doesn't mean the same candidate has control.

      I often use an example for Unified Majority with 40% Hard Right, 29% Moderate Conservative, and 31% Liberal because the 69% always vote in a republican, but each group impacts the outcome. Under UM and Tideman's Alternative, they elect a Moderate Republican; under IRV, the Moderate Republican is eliminated and the Hard Right Republican is elected. Likewise, removing the Hard Right under UM gets you a Moderate Liberal; removing the Moderate Conservatives gets you a Hard Right Republican; and removing the Liberals gets you a Hard Right Republican.

      As you can see, every vote is factored into the final outcome of Tideman's Alternative. Unified Majority uses an electoral structure to ensure the final candidate set represents the span of voters so that Tideman's Alternative has something with which to work.

      Even so, if more than half your base is behind a single candidate, that candidate wins. If more than half your base is behind a party, that party wins--albeit the particular candidate may be softer than if you had a party primary.

      Switching was aided by a fairly long-term trend of rising progressives who both supported the change and were wresting control.

      It's more than RCV has become a meme and has politically less risk, so the perceived losses for not switching are large. That's how politics operates these days. It's what Trump has refined to its absolute conclusion.

      My complex analysis is not something you see in the political sphere. The political sphere is about a brand. It's about $15/hr, whenever that gets here, and to hell with inflation and productivity gains and a fair wage. $15 in 2005 or $15 in 2025, as long as it's $15.

    60. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'New Knowledge"

      Google these sheisters up.

      TLDR version.
      *Makes software to protect social media from foreign propaganda.
      *Sets up accounts in a Russian marketing company and runs ads.
      *Tells US government and Media these are Russian ads are bots interfering with the election.
      *US Media and talking heads say this is proof of Russian election meddling
      *Facebook catches up to them and bans their accounts from Facebook.

      oh.. and the DNC and Hillary Clinton - while everyone is being distracted by this BS, people aren't aware of the content of her emails which showed she rigged the DNC against Bernie Sanders, and has been using ISIS/ISIL as a US State Department tool for regime change.

    61. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't limits on speech. Or rather, they should not be considered to be. It might seem like nitpicking, but it is important to distinguish between going after someone for what they said vs why they said it. The mere utterance of certain words must never be prosecutable, it must always rely on context.

      Though even then I am not sure I agree, it is at least a step up from "you shouted 'FIRE' in a crowded theater? Since I don't like you and it doesn't matter that there was an actual fire, I am charging you with a crime. Have fun in prison".

    62. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Vladimir Putin needs to die in a fire and go back to hell. You fucking Russian paid troll satanic scum!

    63. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      As a Canadian, it makes me especially angry to see US media and law enforcement agencies talk about foreign election influencing. I wonder exactly how they would respond if Canadian law enforcement started issues extradition orders for the thousands of American media personalities who thought it prudent to comment on our last federal election (and whose messages get FAR more visibility than some Russian facebook ads)?

    64. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Where's your evidence that Russian "funded" any of these right wing groups?
      If anyone wants to weaken the West, it's not the right wing groups. Left wing are far more likely to be anti-military, to have a "live and let live" attitude that ensures Russia (and others) can do whatever they want around the world, to allow larges swaths of the country to lower it's quality of life and increase government dependency, open it's borders, abolish ICE, and engage in divisive identity politics and foment guilt and anger.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    65. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by greythax · · Score: 2

      It's important to remember that Russia only had to come up with the memes, and fake news. Those articles were snapped right up by the public at large and disseminated across platforms. Our people were more than happy to be part of the problem. And it is important to note that those ads show that they weren't just shilling for a candidate, but pushing any divisive issue they can find, on both sides of the political spectrum. What Russia wants from this is to be able to point at the west and laugh. They are after a propaganda point, something to show western democracies as "not all they are cracked up to be." A country that small knows they can't take over America from within, but pointing at a democracy in turmoil when trying to convince a country on your border to vote itself back in to a Russian empire can be very helpful.

    66. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by greythax · · Score: 2

      So, in your world view, the russians were running a million dollar a year troll farm completely for the benefit of a cabal of western businesses and clandestine organizations?

      You see how that sounds crazy, right?

    67. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate..
      Ah, I see: you believe Whitehouse press releases.

    68. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by hey! · · Score: 1

      The Russian and American people as potential friends -- sure. The respective *governments*? Not so much. Russia especially is a kleptocracy with no tradition of constitutional restraint of power.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    69. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads ..

      Those are some of the early reports that the Republicans/Russians were pushing. The biggest issue wasn't the thousands of dollars of ads, it was the stuff in TFA. Just because campaigns spend money inefficiently, doesn't mean that more efficient methods don't work

    70. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron!

    71. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english?

      That they are attempting to influence the results of elections via efforts to change public opinion.

      Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"?

      Yes.

      Is Israel?

      Yes.

      What about corporations?

      Them too

      Government agencies?

      Technically illegal, but if they're careful they can influence public opinion too.

      What's new and different is the level of effort and sophistication Russia is employing, as well as their targets. The other meddlers attempt to co-opt the already powerful which does create a sort of balance via competing lobbying efforts. Russia's going after rank-and-file voters.

    72. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election

      I don't think you quite understand just how close the 2016 election was, as well as how inexpensive Russian labor is.

      10,000 more people in Michigan show up to the polls, and Clinton wins. With turnout so low, there were plenty of people who did not vote who could have been part of that 10k.

      That's not to say Russia was entirely responsible - team Clinton could have overwhelmed the Russian efforts in Michigan if they hadn't ignored the state. But that statement doesn't mean the Russian efforts did not exist.

      You also don't quite understand the difference between coordinated efforts and random efforts. Individuals posting on the Internet are going to have a more-or-less random distribution of who they support, which means they're going to mostly cancel each other out. A coordinated effort by a country or large organization is going to be only in one direction, thus pushing public opinion in that direction.

    73. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia profits of course, from a weaker West and NATO.

      Because a strong NATO and strong west means supporting Russian economy by building a pipeline to buy up more Russian gas.

      What is the point of NATO if member states economically support Russia while at the same time not fulfill their defense obligations?

    74. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion, or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.

      You're focusing on paid advertisements, which is a fraction of the alleged interference. There were also the numerous fake accounts posting both pro and anti-BLM stuff, pushing memes, posting false or partisan articles, and the networks of bots and other fake accounts used to to amplify the visibility of those posts. This is all done without spending a cent on advertising. They probably spent a lot more on wages, developing bots, etc, but those would be hidden (to us) costs. The whole point was to drive up divisiveness and partisanship. And on that point it seems to have worked.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    75. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This being marked insightful is a fucking travesty. Someone "meddling" in our election is an act of war. And the asshole trolls who try to downplay with "well it's just something all countries do gosh" - fuck your whataboutism. Seriously people like you having a platform is what HELPS cyberwarfare propaganda soldiers do their job. Shut the fuck up.

    76. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government agencies?

      Technically illegal, but if they're careful they can influence public opinion too.

      I thought, that every administration, elected body is running Success propaganda close to elected term.
      WE did THIS, and THIS, and also THIS ....
      if it is not public opinion influencing what is it? Elect us for next cadence! not those XYZ ...

    77. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Paul+Pierce · · Score: 2

      This sounds like a post from CNN. A bunch of what-if's, followed by blaming the Russians. I'm open to the discussion but you have to somehow provide me 2 things to get me to even consider this scenario.

      1. Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election. If fake news and random facebook posts are attempts to 'hack' our election, then there is zero chance that only Russia was involved. Of course they are trying to influence our elections, virtually everyone is. If Saudi Arabia or France was trying to 'meddle' and posted facebook ads for team Clinton would we know? How many elections before has this happened. How many total 'fake news' or ads where there? If it's 1 ad per million than so what. I seriously need context and no one is added any to this discussion. 2 years and not once has CNN given any context to this. How many people in power worldwide know the Clinton's, she was Secretary of State if you didn't know that. How many contacts do they have in the US? How much did they tweet? Post? Call?

      2. Please explain to me exactly how the 10,000 people in Michigan that decided to not show up was directly related to Russians? I mean seriously. Was anyone physically threatened in the entire country by a Russian? Were there Trump vans blocking polls? The argument you seem to be making is that Americans are so dumb that Russia puts a fake ad on facebook so we believe it and therefore do not go and vote for a Clinton. The only way this works (because I'm not seeing actual 'hacking' being blamed) is if people are so easily persuaded in voting for the wrong person that anyone could do it. Of course this then begs the question of why doesn't everyone put out dumb ads? This falls flat on itself as no one is able to make a decision because we're so easily duped; or we're so stupid as a whole that we deserve whomever they want us to vote for.

      Whenever one side loses they look for reasons; CNN and the dems sat around a table and threw out ideas. Russia and Trump stuck enough and they ran with it, and ran with it, and pushed it, and ran with it, and ignored real news, and ignored context, and ran with it...

    78. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm sure that Russia is meddling in the elections here. Just like every non-American with Internet access and an opinion on Trump/Clinton chipped in their 2 cents. Just like the U.S. meddles in elections elsewhere. People talk to each other, it's a fact of life. And in the Internet age that means they'll talk across national boundaries, even about stuff that they're technically not supposed to be talking about..

      Yeah, Arab Spring ... anybody remembers? that was certain US administration ... but it is not meddling, it is restoring/introducing/upholding/whatever DEMOCRACY.
      Meddling it is when somebody is doing it to US (or USoA) .. .and ... nooo we were not able to sway voters in desired direction.

      So in short "Meddling" is present when it is against OUR (royal) purposes & goals.
      Applicable to both parties in the USoA

    79. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People voting all over the USA and UK got the results they wanted.
      Who gets to say what is going to "enhance democracy"? A think tank? An expert? A political group? NATO? an EU bureaucrat, someone from a university? The person who sets a code of conduct for their brand? ...
      That's what US freedoms protect from censorship.
      The freedom of the press. The freedom to publish. The freedom to read and comment on what is interesting. What is funny. What is creative.
      To stay free after publishing. Not needing a governments permission to comment, to publish. To be a journalist and publish any story.

      There are groups self nominated to set borders to the "free discourse" who would gladly decide who is not allowed to present their views, who is certified to be always true ...
      Look for "Deplatforming" those "persons" would gladly should you into oblivion because they KNOW what is true and just.
      Anything else is of course unjust and wrong.

      i was born in the country where anybody could run for the office ... after obtaining approval from the ruling communists party.
      and my country had "republic" in name.
      The same to publish or broadcast.

      Now I choose American freedoms every living day. Including 2nd amendment ...
      This time, when they come to enforce The Party Line I will be prepared.

    80. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.

      Donald Trump and Brexit, two high-profile right wing success stories that have been achieved with the help of fabricated and fear mongering "alternative facts", from Russia, with Love:

      - US foreign policy is in shambles and the country is as divided as ever, because Trump is a divisive person.
      - Britain has been de-facto paralyzed for years and will weaken the EU as a whole by the exit.
      - Both of these weaken the relations and cooperation between the USA and Europe, the western democratic alliances that form NATO.
      - Putin is an ex-KGB agent whose mindset is entrenched in cold-war mentality. He has never gotten to terms with the fact that the west "won" the cold war - the Warsaw Pact crumbled and the great Soviet Union that defeated Nazi Germany degenerated into the fairly insignificant developing economy that Russia is today. Putin regards NATO as a threat to Russia - NATO has been expanding eastward without firing a single bullet. Sawing chaos among his great adversaries is his new cold war.

    81. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop feeding the trolls.

      Those that believe these fringe ideals are of the minority. Unfortunately, repeating a minority viewpoint is the in thing these days. Trolling can difficult to spot. Also as anyone with close friends can attest to can lead to hard feelings unless you are in on the bad joke. Politicians and political reporters are using a very bad form of trolling to focus the conversations away from the real issues legal or otherwise.

      The real question is when will well meaning reporters wise up to the fact that they are being used?

    82. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Problem is: people who voted for Trump or Brexit don't think that far and will fall for the next populist idiot with the next elections.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    83. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      I agree. One point that I think gets overlooked is that with most polls predicting a seemingly easy Clinton win, I'd bet a whole lot of Clinton supporters didn't bother to vote. Maybe even 10,000 of them in Michigan.

      Trump supporters love to talk about how the "lying" polls tried to keep Trump voters away by claiming he didn't have a chance, but I suspect it hurt Clinton more. I don't think the polls were dishonest. Didn't they all indicate margins of error?

      I was fairly sure of a Clinton win too, up until sometime in October I started to have doubts.

    84. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why we are in the state that we are in. People are too stupid to see the truth. Russia employed a large scale psyops operation to do what the US has been doing in banana republics for decades. All you have to do is follow the events in Venezuela over the past decade to see how successful these operations are. It is and has happened here and the divisions they are creating can lead to a similar breakdown and ultimately civil war.

      Bunch of backwards idiots can't see it and keep spreading the story they were trained to.

    85. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I thought, that every administration, elected body is running Success propaganda close to elected term.

      That's where "be careful" comes into play. They can't outright lie or they run afoul of laws against propaganda. So they have to have some basis for what claims they do push into the media, and can "selectively interpret" the data they have.

    86. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Didn't they all indicate margins of error?

      Yep, though far more important is they all have turnout models. And turnout among Democrats in 2016 was abysmal. Democratic turnout in 2016 was lower than in 2014. That's mostly unheard of - Turnout has always gone up in presidential election years. (Republican turnout was about as expected in 2016).

      So it's understandable that the turnout models expected that pattern to continue, as well as an indication of just how terrible the Clinton campaign was at the basics of campaigning.

    87. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      A number of flaws in your analysis:
      (1) You are comparing figures spent in a specific venue to aggregate figures that include the total of all ad spending. That total includes (for example) TV ads which are much more expensive and arguable less effective.
      (2) Much of this is getting pushed by free social media accounts, not by ad purchases. Again, these are also more effective than ads, as they are presented as "authentic" and non-paid.
      (3) The Internet Research Agency isn't for hire to run anyone's election campaign. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Their sole purpose is to sow division and thus weakness. That can be done without endorsing any specific candidate. To them, Trump is a "useful idiot" - not a leader or even a client. (Money laundering for Russian oligarchs notwithstanding.) The troll farm may well endorse a loudmouth like Ocasio-Cortez to ensure the Dems have no effective leadership either.

      Point 3 sort of leads on to a whole 'noter post, about how the decay of American politics has already succeeded. Make no mistake, the seeds for that were planted already decades ago by red-blooded Americans. That is why Trump's election never surprised me. People view it as some kind of upset, but to me it's the logical conclusion of the decay.

    88. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fact is that people are so busy fracturing society into groups by defining common enemies and lumping enough people in them through strawmen arguments to make it look like an issue to be concerned about...

      These people are the real common enemy!

      Not sure how much I am joking....

    89. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      A bunch of what-if's, followed by blaming the Russians.

      If you're going to discuss the effects that any particular group had on an election, you're going to have to discuss what would happen in the absence of those efforts.

      Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election

      You'll need some more specifics. Meddle specifically in elections? So far it's Russia. Meddle in our politics in general via lobbying and public relations campaigns? A shitload. That's why we have a lot of laws about things like registering as foreign lobbyist.

      Those efforts do spill over into elections, but elections are not themselves the target due to the much smaller scale. For example, the Netanyahu government has worked very hard to conflate any criticism of their policies with criticism of all Jews. That's primarily in the service of gaining foreign aid and blocking sanctions, but also lays some groundwork for a candidate to accuse their opponent of being antisemetic. Or Saudi efforts at anti-Iran lobbying resulting in accusations of being "soft on terror".

      If fake news and random facebook posts are attempts to 'hack' our election, then there is zero chance that only Russia was involved.

      Again, you're not understanding the scale of the effort Russia undertook vs the scale of the efforts other countries undertake. Russia's scale was the new thing in this area.

      And you can expect other countries to notice Russia's success, so expect 2020 to be a major shitshow as China and others get involved.

      If Saudi Arabia or France was trying to 'meddle' and posted facebook ads for team Clinton would we know?

      Yep! You seem to be forgetting which party ran everything from 2017 to 2019. If there was any shred of evidence of other countries acting at the scale Russia was, then you can be sure the Republicans would be screaming about it into any microphone they could find.

      How many people in power worldwide know the Clinton's, she was Secretary of State if you didn't know that

      Are you under the illusion that Donald Trump had zero foreign contacts? Are you aware of just how many Russians just happen to buy luxury condos from Trump?

      How many total 'fake news' or ads where there?

      Facebook says they found thousands of individual stories that were linked to by thousands-to-millions. Network affects mean that those stories should have been seen by about 100 per share, resulting in hundreds of millions of views. Other social media has not publicly announced numbers.

      Please explain to me exactly how the 10,000 people in Michigan that decided to not show up was directly related to Russians?

      One of the primary vectors the Russians used was "Clinton Sucks and she stole it from Sanders". Post-election polling shows those efforts depressed Democratic turnout. Other Russian efforts to increase Republican turnout were not found to be effective.

      Since you're interested in scale, +10,000 turnout would be roughly what a candidate could have achieved from one large rally in Michigan, at these low turnout rates. So the Russian efforts were effective, but could have been countered by basic competence by the Clinton campaign. That doesn't make those efforts irrelevant, but provides scale.

      The argument you seem to be making is that Americans are so dumb that Russia puts a fake ad on facebook so we believe it and therefore do not go and vote for a Clinton

      A man literally drove hundreds of miles to shoot up a pizza parlor in order to "rescue" trafficked children that were locked in a non-existent basement. There's a not-insignificant number of people who still insist Obama was not born in the US. Several families of the victims of Sandy Hook are in hiding due to people claiming they are "crisis actors" worthy of death threa

    90. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      There's many steps we can take to fix, as in repair, the electoral system. Multi-round runoff elections sound way better than 2 shitty primaries, for example. Everyone is too scared to even touch that. Hell, we can't even do away with the Electoral College. Or Daylight Savings Time for that matter. Organizational inertia!

      Anyway, if the gerrymandering, poll-taxing Republicans were "mad as hell" at the result, they wouldn't be bobbleheaded yes-men for Dear Leader, and they wouldn't nominate him a second time. But it looks like all that is coming to pass.

    91. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The elections being close does not mean that tiny supposed-meddling swung them. On the contrary, it means any of a hundred factors could have been a little different and the supposed meddling wouldn't have mattered.

      Also, there has been no evidence of effort coordinated by the Russian state to do any of the stuff billed as elections interference.

    92. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Russians"? You live in the same 1950s B-movie as the US media, it seems. Dey ohl vork for deh Kremlin.

    93. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it means any of a hundred factors could have been a little different and the supposed meddling wouldn't have mattered.

      So, it was simultaneously not big enough of an effect, and a big enough effect.

      Shrodinger's interference?

      Also, there has been no evidence of effort coordinated by the Russian state to do any of the stuff billed as elections interference.

      Sure, as long as you ignore the pile of indictments.

    94. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice Gish Gallop, how about debating in good faith?

    95. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Woldarp · · Score: 1

      Right now there are two main groups of state trolls: 1) Israel/talpiot 2) Russia and Iran They're waging a propaganda war over what happens in Syria re: the US.

    96. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Woldarp · · Score: 1

      (((Who))) indeed.

    97. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been to both USA and Russia. I see both as friends, and none as enemies.

      Are you mentally challanged? Pleas, at least TRY to pretend you are real. Friends... Good one. Not sure why you would want to associate yourself with what is mostly human garbage. Russians might be your friends but their government is an abomination. As someone born in USSR I assure you of that as I witnessed the whole shit storm in making. And no, you don't get an opinion about my "country".

      The only way to deal with Russia is to nuke them from orbit. Just to be sure. Because they will not hesitate even for a moment if they have a chance to do so to everyone else and get away with it. Theill nuke people just to test their new weapon designes because value of their own life for them is virtually 0. Everyone else is lesds than nothing.

      Russia is a rotting corpse of USSR and it will continue to be a problem until it rots from the inside. Until there is nothing left and god willing they are not going to take the rest of the world with them.

      You are delusional to even imply something good about that shithole of a country and most likely a Russian troll.

    98. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The USA has freedom of speech, the freedom to publish and freedom for the press.
      Who gets to set out a "plan for a democracy"?
      A faith group? Communist? Th EU? A think tank? NGO? A political party? A brand with a product to sell?
      Thats why freedom of speech is so great. Lots of ideas, cartoons, memes, art to think about without needing to consult a "plan for a democracy" for approval.
      With freedom of speech no need to wait for "someone always has to decide" to publish, print, link, to comment.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    99. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, only something like half the online "discussion" around the elections was of Russian origin. No big matter at all. Can't have had any effect.

      Here's the thing: misinformation campaigns have been used, and known to be effective for millennia. Why are you so adamant that you cannot possibly have been affected by one? Why? Is it a matter of pride never to admit that outside world can have an effect on your thinking?

    100. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "laws against propaganda" HAHAHAHAHA

      you're kidding, right?

    101. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany.

      Nuke me from orbit if you like, but the dirty little secret is that Russia has NOTHING to do with the blow-back that is anti-immigration from shit-hole nations into the West. FACT!

      Found the Russian troll!!!

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    102. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Every single US intelligence agency has explicitly defined the ways in which Russia is 'meddling'. The head of Homeland Security has given several interviews in which the meddling was described in details.

    103. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      if the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small

      Every single US intelligence agency has stated that the interference was targeted, significant, and way more intrusive than in prior elections.

      I don't think you can evaluate the effect it had based on dollars spent alone.

    104. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Big Brother Google profits - they get an excuse to crank up their domestic censorship and manipulation.

      NATO profits - an obsolete institution from a long passed conflict gains a new lease on life.

      Any country that is a rival of both America and Russia profits - which is to say, this conflict is great for China.

      Finance capital profits - by weakening two comparatively independent and unpredictable national leaders.

      PR firms, social media management companies, cyberstalkers for hire, troll farms, and propagandists profit from increased demand for their professional services.

    105. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell 'em, Lars!

      How's the weather in Brussels today? Did they ever get better food at the NATO cafeteria?

    106. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      During the Obama administration - with strong bipartisan support - the old virtuous law against domestic propaganda was repealed; and a disgraceful law authorizing the military to wage domestic propaganda campaigns was passed.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    107. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, completely trust the fine upstanding nazis at the Department of Fatherland Security.

    108. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brohamley - when you correct a mistake with another post, ALWAYS use the same sock puppet account you used to make the original post.

    109. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly AC - everybody knows DNC takes their orders from China.

    110. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Brexit, two high-profile right wing success stories

      What the fuck makes you think Brexit is 'right wing'?

      Must've been all those Labour supporting strongholds voting to leave. You know, ones like Wales.

      Britain has been de-facto paralyzed for years and will weaken the EU as a whole by the exit.

      This is true, but it's better than Britain ceasing to exist as an independent country.

    111. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A certain Mr B Obama tried to influence a referendum in the UK too, although that mostly backfired on him and the idiots that wheeled him in.

    112. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Your first two points though really just condemn the Democrat campaign.

      They spent half a billion dollars more than the Republican one but you're saying that someone else spending a tiny percentage of that was able to influence the outcome of the election sufficiently to win it.

      The obvious interpretation is that the Democrats wasted most of their campaign funds and can't be trusted with a national budget.

      Irrespective of any foreign involvement it's clear that Clinton ran a fucking terrible campaign (that included insulting many voters she should have been appealing to) and the US media gave Trump an astonishing amount of free publicity. You can't blame Russia for that.

    113. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The USA has freedom of speech

      With limits. If you cause people to be injured, say by shouting "fire" when there isn't one, you can be held liable. There are limits on speaking state secrets.

      the freedom to publish

      There are words you cannot broadcast on certain mediums at certain times of the day.

      Who gets to set out a "plan for a democracy"?

      No one individual, it has to be a collective decision, i.e. democratic.

      How else are you going to decide what your democracy is? Don't just keep saying "who", describe how you would have a country define its democracy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    114. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      They don't need any significant basis. They have a relation of trust with the media so they only need to voice 'suspicions' on something for the media to take it seriously and inflate it. Suspicions and insininuations don't need any base. You can just take any open source event and nod knowingly. That's also the logic of the Mighty Wurlitzer.: if there is a whole body of wide spectrum suspicions then everybody moves in the general direction of the claims. Nobody pays attention if the claims later are shown to be baseless. And those who do, well, evidently they are willing or unknowing accomplices for the bad guys.

      My sources are people like Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, people at Consortium News and the American Conservative. In general (but not always) people who think Trump is disgusting but who also think he's mostly being attacked on trumped up conspiracy theories or on his rare good initiatives (Normalization with Korea, getting out of Syria, getting along with Russia(that was only an intent which he gave up on)) but whenever he does something revolting he suddenly becomes presidential.

      Most of what you believe as fact on Russiagate is nothing more than conspiracy thinking. And not only the media. Take the whole Mueller investigation. It was started on 'a suspicion' and ends with it. But in the meantime everyone just 'knows'. In a decently functioning system you need a high threshold in order to start an official investigation against a sitting president. When the threshold is lowered it just becomes politics.

      An article listing media failures on Russiagate
      https://theintercept.com/2019/...

    115. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to read a sensible post, and it's not even the only one on this thread.And it's been modded up. I've been giving up on /. because I'm disgusted by the gullible groupthink which has come to dominate the place on political issues like Russiagate and Fake News. It's not that people have become dumber , just that things are starting to 'gel' more into a hive mind.

      The example you give is good. It highlights an assumption of some pristine system which gets infiltrated by a foreign magical superpower. In reality the US has a fairly open system where a lot of powers compete with all means available, or collaborate at other times. It is robust in that way. You can try to get in there but that makes you just one more competitor.A competitor on a budget too. In that context claims like 'The Russians took over the elections' are preposterous because even if Russia attempted everything that they are being accused of (and I think they didn't) they would still only be a modest player who can't make things go their way.

    116. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      The obvious interpretation is that the Democrats wasted most of their campaign funds and can't be trusted with a national budget.

      Given that Congress, and not the President, is supposed to control the purse, that's a massive non-sequitur. I agree that funds (and time) were not spent well. More to the point, given the recent budget proposal from over the weekend, I'm not sure who you think can put together a competent budget. Libertarians might be closest for me, at least in terms of a recommended spending amount.

    117. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes.... ONE MILLLiooON DoLllARESss!! You are a fucking idiot.

    118. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA has freedom of speech

      With limits. If you cause people to be injured, say by shouting "fire" when there isn't one, you can be held liable.

      Your words are causing injury to me. The fact that people like you are simultaneously demanding the censorship of others while also whining "muh freeze peach!" when that censorship comes back to bite you in the ass, is giving me an aneurysm.

      Congratulations, you have once again played yourself.

    119. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Congress, and not the President, is supposed to control the purse, that's a massive non-sequitur.

      Not really, since 1912 with the Budget and Accounting Act, Congress gave POTUS the power/responsibility to submit a budget to Congress to begin the budget process.

      This has allowed the POTUS to ask for things from Congress. Congress technically could ignore and deny those things, but in practice just the act of being able to ask gives the POTUS influence over the budget.

    120. Re: Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 Russians with a $120k budget defeated Hillary and her legion of media propagandists backed by billions of dollars.

      And you wanted that breathtaking incompetence to take over your government?

    121. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Most of that is even true, expect for the fact that it makes a mountain out of a molehill. For the upteenth millionth time, correlation does not mean causation.

      So why the frantic handwaving about 'viral' Russian memes and articles that noone can seem to provide examples of? Because when the actual evidence of Russian activity is examined over the course of several years, it barely shows any uptick at all.

      Meanwhile hundreds of millions of dollars were being pumped into NGO's who run their own troll farms, and whose sole purpose is to push out maximum disinformation and propaganda, while being backed by a news media that is undeniably biased. This happens to be the exact same group that is now pumping out the russian interference narrative. What a coincidence.

    122. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as you ignore the pile of indictments.

      Oh no, we can't ignore that. A pile of scalps for propaganda as a result of this fishing expedition was a major feature of the Mueller investigation. Does the term 'Potemkin village' mean anything to you?

    123. Re:Who benefits from making Russia the enemy? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Every single US intelligence agency has stated that the interference was targeted, significant, and way more intrusive than in prior elections.

      That report brought to you and signed by James "least untruthful" Clapper, and written by agents he personally selected. You know, the same way the public was told of Iraq's WMDs.

      But hey, if appeal to authority matters so much, what does a former ambassador to the soviet union have to say about the matter?

  4. reddit editor by juan_two · · Score: 2

    cringe. this stuff needs to be kept in its containment site (reddit)

  5. Dear Leftist TWATS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We Don't Need another cold war... Thanks! ;-D

  6. Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.

    Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.

    Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Friends, Hannity, Pirro....

    1. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, and like the MSM is perfect without any fake news. cough CNN cough. How many times has CNN, ABC news, MSNBC, and all the other MSM have had to retract their news stories? Smollett - many hateful things said and then whoops he did a hoax crime, Comey Testimoney was finally going to Impeach Trump then whoops even the Muller investigation had to come out and say it was wrong, Trump said he was wiretapped and the whole media laughed and said he wasn't then whoops, yes he was even by Obama, Hillary didn't know who paid for the Dossier then whoops yes the Clintons paid for it and even colluded with the Russians. Boy smirking at Native american vet causes much outrage then whoops, the Native American was attacking the boys and he lied about being a vet - *cought* stolen valor cough, and the black preachers really were being racist and hate mongering any retractions or apologies [crickets]. There have been several other major lies the MSM have been caught in since Trump became pres and they refuse to give a retraction. Talk about a bunch of Fake news. You really have your stories backwards. Weird, I don't see those same sorts of major faux pas with Fox. Maybe it's not Fox you should worry about.

    2. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put down the Kool-Aid and walk away.

    3. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put down the Kool-Aid and walk away.

      You sure?

      If you wanted to divide, weaken, and destabilize the US you could hardly improve on AOC and Ilhan Omar.

    4. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes ...

      Jesus Fucking Christ you have swallowed the leftist Kool-Aid.

      How's this for conspracy-with-Russia:

      1. Come up with an academic theory. Call it "Cultural Marxism".
      2. Make sure it's spread in Western academia.
      3. Push it into "intersectionality".
      4. Watch as it divisively pits Western interest groups against each other as they fight for "biggest victim" status from the very society that allows them to exist.

      Wow. Imagine that.

      Now tell me Cultural Marxism and intersectional theory aren't designed to destroy the West, and every last adherent - Alexandria Occasio-Cortex and Ilhan Omar prominent amongst them - aren't the actual Putin pawns.

      GROW A FUCKING BRAIN, YOU MORON!

    5. Re:Fox news? by physicsphairy · · Score: 2

      The irony is that AC here may well be the Russian operative in the room.

      Always remember that Russia is not truly sided with or against any American party, political idea, or institution. What they are against is American and Western strength, and what they are for is anything which sabotages that strength and ability to act. Their goal is to be able to muscle in like they did in Ukraine and Syria and fill the vacuum that results from weakening global contenders.

      To that end, they are more than happy to be "caught" manipulating American elections. That makes them seem strong and America seem weak. And I doubt they care much at all whether Candidate A or Candidate B wins except they want whichever does win to be weakened by the infighting and the accusations of collaboration. They are also happy to have accusations bandied about who they support and who supports them. In all likelihood, they are the ones sponsoring them. Anything that points out a group of fellow Americans or Westerners as the "true enemy" is in Russia's interest to promote. If not, then it's just Americans doing their work for them.

      The best defense to Russia is to take it very seriously abroad and find ways to make Putin's grip on power the more difficult and tenuous. When it comes to domestic affairs, Russia can't mind control large groups of Americans, but it can spark existing tensions and promote paranoia, even of itself. The best recourse of the average citizen is to find common ground, build bridges with your political opponents, and call your congressperson to tell them you support follow though on the Magnitsky Act (which makes Putin's dictatorship far less palatable to the Russian elites) and ones like it and taking a hardline on Russia.

    6. Re:Fox news? by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Put down the Kool-Aid and walk away.

      You sure?

      If you wanted to divide, weaken, and destabilize the US you could hardly improve on AOC and Ilhan Omar.

      Bullshit, most of the people outraged at Ilhan Omar for pointing out that AIPAC uses money to **GHASP** lobby!!!! ... because it is supposedly anti-semitic to point out that jewish people are not above buying political influence with money like everybody else. However, the people most outraged over Omar's utterances are also the same people who have been deriding George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and other jewish people more liberal than themselves which they don't like for buying political influence with money. Of course that is a steaming pile of hypocrisy since that means that it's OK to sling around anti-Semitic tropes about jews and money if you are, white, Republican and a Trump supporter but not if you are a little brown woman in a Hijab.

    7. Re:Fox news? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.

      Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.

      Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Friends, Hannity, Pirro....

      Hillary was (thankfully) not elected due to her very real deficiencies. No fake news required.

      She was worse than a clown. Let that sink in.

      You all were so gobsmacked though that you had to come up with some crazy theory as to how she could have possibly lost.

    8. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that AC here may well be the Russian operative in the room.

      I am not!

    9. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's weird that you're here defending foreign nations buying influence while complaining about Russia posting memes online. Trying to have it both ways much? Also, that's hardly the extent of their anti-Semitism, but you knew that, right? I note that you try to shift away from talking about the reasons and instead try to make it about the people complaining about it, as if it matters who calls out wanting to wipe Israel off the map as anti-Semitism? Would it become less anti-Semitic for being called out by the wrong person?

      Because let's just be clear: stupid Facebook memes about Jesus arm wrestling Satan are exactly what they've shown for "Russian meddling" in court, along with not filing the right TPS reports (though Podesta & co. somehow got a pass on FARA registration stuff and work for the Party of Regions, so hmm...). Never mind free speech for people talking about other elections online. Never mind the fact that I'm not against you because of anything Russia told me, but because your response to these silly memes is "censor all political opposition."

      That's what makes you too dangerous to allow into power. That's what's dividing us here. I have no delusions that it even matters whether or not you believe the Russian story, though--you'd find some excuse to censor all political opponents even if there was no Russia. So I won't be shut up here. This is self-serving nonsense and you can expect to get called out on it.

    10. Re:Fox news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's weird that you're here defending foreign nations buying influence while complaining about Russia posting memes online.

      Where did I do that?

      Trying to have it both ways much? Also, that's hardly the extent of their anti-Semitism, but you knew that, right? I note that you try to shift away from talking about the reasons and instead try to make it about the people complaining about it, as if it matters who calls out wanting to wipe Israel off the map as anti-Semitism?/quote> I don't recall Omar ever calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. All she said was that AIPAC spends money to buy political influence. The next thing you know a bunch of people who have made a career of accusing Bloomberg and Soros (both jewish) of buying influence with their money (but strangely enough have never been accused of anti-Semitism are dumping on Omar for being an anti-semit. Hypocrisy? ... much? All Omar did was point out the patently obvious, that AIPAC is a lobbying group and buys itself influence, but because she is brown and wears a hijab she gets condemned as an anti semite.

  7. Future Stump Speech by mentil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    <Satire>My fellow Americans, this is why we need to eliminate the threat of Democracy. Once only the properly-educated are allowed to choose our great nation's leaders, will we be safe from the threat of Commie election interference! Do you want spies, illegal aliens, and godless heathens casting your vote for you?! This voting test will ensure that No True American will be ineligible to vote.</Satire>

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Future Stump Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this the reason those Asian and African countries are disabling their online democracy features near elections and sometimes all the time?

      maintaining "meaningful public discussion."

      It may be that in some countries, meaningful public discussions are not part of the culture and they fear the change towards it, under their layers and layers of meaningless Russian doll-like stories. Or, to throw a lunatic conspiracy theory out there, some massive global mega-corporation wants to hide it's international crimes by disabling public discussions in every country of the world by employing marketing companies attached to organized crime.

    2. Re: Future Stump Speech by houghi · · Score: 1

      It's funny, because it's true.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Closed loops by dargaud · · Score: 2

    With some graph theory, shouldn't those (mostly) closed cycles of accounts be easy to individuate and cordon off ? Better than delete them, just hide their messages outside their own cycles, similar to -1 messages here on /.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Closed loops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the insightful and/or entertaining comments on Slashdot are AC, and Score:0 or lower. Been that way since the turn of the century.

  9. Trolls use divisive messages by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So was Hillary a Russian troll when she declared a quarter of America a "basket of deplorables"?

    1. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I love how the media decries the "fact" that Russia is supposedly amplifying racially and socially divisive messages to disrupt our democracy and elections. Isn't that what the media and Democrats do every day in order to manipulate us, themselves? I guess they don't like the competition.

    2. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

      So was Hillary a Russian troll when she declared a quarter of America a "basket of deplorables"?

      She was trolling for the same people Mitt Romney was trolling for when he effectively called 47% of Americans a bunch of enitled moochers and his entire Republican audience clapped their approval. Hint: most of those 47% are dirt poor minimum wage workers who don’t pay income taxes because the tax code explicitly exempts them due to them being dirt poor. According to the Republicans these Walmart slaves are simply to lazy to be millionaires.

    3. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a basket of deplorables.

    4. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Trump supporters really are pieces of shit. A duck is a duck.

      We fooled ourselfs in to thinking otherwise. The ugly truth is that 1/4 of the people around you really should not have any say in government.

      Just look around you. Deep down, you know it's true.

    5. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is that related? And for the record she was only wrong in that she underestimated the number of Americans will to support a traitor who blatantly breaks the law, lies about nearly everything, and is making our country less prosperous and secure. So fuck off Trumper - people like you need to PAY for what you've done to this country.

    6. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, she was simply correct that a quarter of United States' citizens are bigoted scum.
      I suspect your outrage over her honestly labeling them is a sign that you require some self awareness.

    7. Re:Trolls use divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: most of those 47% are dirt poor minimum wage workers who don’t pay income taxes because the tax code explicitly exempts them due to them being dirt poor.

      Incorrect. The 40th percentile is about $50,000 which is nowhere near 'dirt poor'.

  10. Ditch Fakebook. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Help make this world better. And oh, Amazon. And Google.

  11. We don't need this by Gabest · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Candidates lie about everything already. What's the point spreading more misinformation?

    1. Re:We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When things are going right to OK, they can't influence anything. But if you have a lot of pissed off deplorables doing it tough or worse, people may vote different. And the election outcome will be true and fair, unless shes a stunner. There is no evidence of Russians promoting strippers and models like in Italy, as ugly US men in suits take all the good spots.
      TG for SNL - and even they they were accused of being Russian.

    2. Re: We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right? Talk about blind unluckiess

    3. Re:We don't need this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the post-truth narrative: everyone lies all the time about everything so believe whatever you want.

      It's dangerous because it's basically giving up on democracy and trying to make things better, and instead voting for stupid reasons like pissing off liberals or trying to disrupt the establishment by voting for even more established candidates.

      Worst of all it makes people think that their opinions are the most valid and ignore all advice from people who do actually understand the issues. Brexit is basically 25% of the population of the UK experiencing a Dunning-Kruger moment.

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

      "That's the post-truth narrative: everyone lies all the time about everything so believe whatever you want"

      You did it to yourselves by supporting lying assholes for your own narrow personal benefits. Tough shit - now everyone just assumes everything is a lie, cause you are just doing it to 'enrich' yourself not to tell the truth.

    5. Re:We don't need this by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The UK population got to vote on Brexit.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:We don't need this by JustNiz · · Score: 0

      > they knew less than nothing about the EU

      Perhaps that's because its a dictatorship (the people don't get to vote on the EU leadership) which is why Brexit needs to happen.

      > that brexit was never deliverable and a complete fantasy from the start.

      Really? Keep watching. It WILL happen in just 18 days time.

    7. Re:We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true. England wasn't able to become a global power until it united with Europe (rolls eyes).

    8. Re:We don't need this by AHuxley · · Score: 3

      The UK existed long before a France and Germany planned an "EU".
      Lots of art, trade, science, culture spread around the world from the UK well before the EU :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:We don't need this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's not an argument for leaving the EU. That's the kind of moronic Rule Britannia bollocks that got us into this mess. Delusions of grandeur that made people think other nations would just be lining up to do great deals with us once free of the EU, when in fact they are all holding back just waiting for the UK to be weak and desperate enough to sign up to anything.

      The world has changed, the Empire has gone. The UK is a major player... in Europe.

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

      > they knew less than nothing about the EU

      Perhaps that's because its a dictatorship (the people don't get to vote on the EU leadership) which is why Brexit needs to happen.

      Point proven.

      We vote both for the leadership of the EU and separately for the people who have the final decision on whether to pass the legislation.

      You've demonstrated that people do not know how the EU actually works. They are just parroting slogans like "it's a dictatorship" that they have been fed by people with an ulterior motive.

    11. Re:We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and they got it totally wrong.

      Not the best example.

    12. Re:We don't need this by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      "Post-truth narrative" is just some stupid buzzword; nothing has changed from the past, we're just seeing a new generation formulate the opinion that politicians lie and/or shouldn't be trusted. It amazes me this ever started to go away. I have to laugh at the constant accusation Donald Trump has told a lie - when did you ever look to politicians as truth tellers, trustable, or even someone who would know the facts on any subject????

      Politics and politicians were never supposed to be about laying out all the facts and making "scientifically correct" decisions. Nothing at that level is black and white, and everything has pros and cons. The only thing that's getting worse (and perfectly evidenced by your DK comment), is that each side thinks the other side has completely lost it, just doesn't "understand all the facts", and is so stupid their views are not even worthy of respect.

    13. Re:We don't need this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Also when you say "spread from the UK" you mean was part of the British colonial rule imposed on half the world.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I've been alive for quite some time now. The fact that politicians (and other people) lie has been a topic of discussion for that entire time. Somehow though, we now have this extreme tribalistic notion that 'the others' are the most inhuman, stupid, etc pieces of shit we have ever seen. To be clear, that idea has always to some extent of the existed, but it seems to constantly come up now. Seems like we can barely leave it behind for even 2 seconds to actually talk about... Anything really.

      Anything and everything is always the fault of those dumb or evil 'others'. Including the fact that I stubbed my toe this morning. People are even willing to point their fingers at potential allies and claim this about them too. And then they wonder how things are constantly going haywire (pro tip, you point your finger at me and claim I'm evil/dumb every other sentence and I'm not going to be too forth coming with the support for your next 'idea')

    15. Re:We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be a democracy when the vast majority of EU citizens can't speak to each other because of the language barriers? (literally hundred of language pairs. try danish/greek or portuguese/lithuanian)
      There doesn't even exist a "European" newspaper or TV channel.

      Several referendums failed in 2005 for establishing the current version of the EU. This is a problem in France's case at least.
      EU pursues extremist policies such as an eventual end goal of selling away all public infrastructure and dismantling healthcare systems, or automated censorship on all text area input fields on the web or internet. Germany and/or globalists write all of these.

    16. Re:We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stupid reasons

      muh vagina.
      muh skin color.
      muh vitcimhood

    17. Re:We don't need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike all those pacifist peoples in Africa, India, China, etc who never once in the enitre history of the world have ever engaged in a war of agression. Those perfect little saints. Don't hate on Britain just because we were really good at a thing that every other nation on the planet has tried at one point or another.

      Do you goto the Olympics and shit all over the gold medalists for not allowing other people to win?

  12. Re: Slashdot is spreading anti-Russian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't believe everything you hear. In fact believe almost nothing you hear. Most of what you hear is someone lying to you, usually to get you to repeat their falsehood at no charge. Combined with newspeak it is a powerful weapon many of us employ for others and get nothing in return.

  13. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that Trump would investigate Hillary and other enemies!

    Meanwhile the Dems in Congress...

  14. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will ultimately lead to stringent election propaganda laws which could be used to stifle free and protected speech among groups of ANY political party for any reason and use the Russians as the patsy just like the Arab hijackers were used to undermine much of the Constitution after 911.

  15. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile the dems in Congress
    Lol I read that in a movie voice.

  16. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought of Super Friends.

  17. Re: They must not be very confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they try to prevent you from finding out more about their game, you know you don't want what they're selling

  18. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least sheâ(TM)s not going to live out her last days in a federal penitentiary.

  19. Just sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sad, that instead of actually making sure the elections are true and correct and uninfluenced, Americans here are just yelling at each other about which party is inventing the situation. In which case you all are pretty fucking dishonorable pieces of garbage.

    Or they are just Russian trolls doing exactly what this article is about.

  20. Reverse Psychology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When does it become a reverse psychology thing?

  21. Let me help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let me explain who benefits from blaming Russia (hint its the DNC in the US).

    Currently the DNC in the US is facing these issues in the upcoming election...
    A KKK member as the VA Gov that they are not calling for him to resign.
    A serial rapist as the VA Lt. Gov they are refusing to impeach or call to resign.
    The House Majority Speaker (the real one AOC) is going to be charged with embezzling $1Million of her campaign funds for personal use illegally
    The DNC is unable to mention anti-Semitism is bad
    Many members of the DNC support killing of live born babies and calling it abortion
    They want to protect illegals who attempt to illegally buy firearms or kill US citizens
    If you eat a steak or fly a plane they want to make you a criminal

    Now if someone points all that out, they have quite a hill to overcome to get people on their side. There really is no way to counter all this bad stuff they are supporting, and all of it is completely true. However, if you can convince people Russians are saying this they get a head start at getting over it.
    In 2016 they literally rigged a national election, the DNC primary, and have not been held responsible. This is because their supporters, the ones whos votes were not counted, were told Russia hacked the election (they didn't). All "Russia did" was show how the election was rigged, and in reality no one has shown evidence that Russia was the one that showed it. Evidence has shown a DNC member released it because he was upset about Bernie.

    So they have a lot of problems, and were successful in fooling their dumber supporters that Russia was responsible for their bad deeds in the past.

    1. Re:Let me help by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Let me explain who benefits from blaming Russia (hint its the DNC in the US).

      Currently the DNC in the US is facing these issues in the upcoming election...

      A KKK member as the VA Gov that they are not calling for him to resign.

      A serial rapist as the VA Lt. Gov they are refusing to impeach or call to resign.

      The House Majority Speaker (the real one AOC) is going to be charged with embezzling $1Million of her campaign funds for personal use illegally

      The DNC is unable to mention anti-Semitism is bad

      Many members of the DNC support killing of live born babies and calling it abortion

      They want to protect illegals who attempt to illegally buy firearms or kill US citizens

      If you eat a steak or fly a plane they want to make you a criminal

      Now if someone points all that out, they have quite a hill to overcome to get people on their side. There really is no way to counter all this bad stuff they are supporting, and all of it is completely true. However, if you can convince people Russians are saying this they get a head start at getting over it. In 2016 they literally rigged a national election, the DNC primary, and have not been held responsible. This is because their supporters, the ones whos votes were not counted, were told Russia hacked the election (they didn't). All "Russia did" was show how the election was rigged, and in reality no one has shown evidence that Russia was the one that showed it. Evidence has shown a DNC member released it because he was upset about Bernie.

      So they have a lot of problems, and were successful in fooling their dumber supporters that Russia was responsible for their bad deeds in the past.

      Interesting.....very interesting, I'd not thought of all that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Let me help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I heard was "No, you're a Nazi!"

  22. How about: Don't be stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It has been how many years since we started hearing about Russian hacking/trolling/misinformation? So long now that we just take it for granted that it is not the fault of the reader, but of some outside undefinable source.

    Let's try something that is almost unheard of in today's world; personal responsibility. In other words, don't be stupid. Cross reference the things you believe to be facts, don't subscribe to one sided news outlets, don't blindly forward stupid shit in your feed, delete your facebook account.

    We have more information at our fingertips then at any other time in history, yet we put on blinders and read only things that confirm our bias and at times our bats hit crazy conspiracy theories.

    1. Re:How about: Don't be stupid by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Cross reference the things you believe to be facts

      That would be lovely if only one (or a small number) of sources were reporting a particular lie.

      For example, "Obama was born in Kenya!!" was started by 2 political operatives (one D, one R). Pizzagate appears to be originally from 4chan. "Seth Rich was the DNC leaker" started from one guy.

      All of those false stories got reported by larger and larger numbers of outlets, lending credibility to the stories.

      If you came in after those stories blew up, you'd find lots of "confirmation" via many sources saying the same thing.

    2. Re:How about: Don't be stupid by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      In other words, don't be stupid.

      Telling people not to be stupid never works.

      And no doubt some people think I'm "stupid". I don't think I am, but the way I get modded sometimes suggest others do.

  23. Bloomburg by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    This is the same Bloomburg with the hidden chips in Supermicro motherboards?

    Or is this another case of 'Good Wikileaks/Bad Wikileaks'?

    1. Re:Bloomburg by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      No Bloomberg is literally the last name of the credited reporter.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  24. Divisive messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time magazine and the rest of the globalist corporate mainstream media talking about divisiveness and meddling in elections. The hypocrisy is staggering.

  25. sigh, poor liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough with the "Russian Trolls" propaganda. Face it, Hillary had ZERO chance of defeating Trump. Spoiler alert: Guess who will win the 2020 election? (Hint: Are you tired of winning yet!?)

    1. Re:sigh, poor liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Candidate, Party,Electoral Votes, Popular Votes
      Donald J. Trump,Republican,304, 62,980,160
      Hillary R. Clinton,Democratic,227, 65,845,063

      Yeah...no chance. You moron.

  26. It was never Russia. by RedK · · Score: 0, Troll

    The establishment and their media cronies are the ones responsible. They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.

    And now it's that same establishment trying to deflect their own divisiveness unto some strange boogeyman. And the media cronies repeat and spread for their master. Yes that means you Slashdot Editors. My god has this site gone to shit.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    1. Re:It was never Russia. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Fuck you and your mother you ingenious piece of shit.

    2. Re:It was never Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the media, the russians and every cash-taker are not disrupting but following the script to the point

    3. Re:It was never Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made his point.

    4. Re:It was never Russia. by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.

      Um....you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. And LBJ was instrumental in lobbying FOR the bill.

      Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment". In 1964, many Southerns were still so pissed off at Lincoln that they refused to join the Republican party. So the political division in the US at the time was not Democrat vs Republican, it was Western Republican + Southern Democrat vs Northern Republican + Western Democrat. Even this is an oversimplification, in that skillful politicians gathered a bloc of other politicians and frequently voted together, regardless of party lines.

      The Civil Rights Act was the thing that broke this pattern, because it was so abhorrent to those Southern Democrats that they switched to the Republican party. And as a result of the ensuing party shift, many Northern Republicans became Democrats. This is called the Southern Realignment, and it is one of the major reasons why US politics is where it is today, instead of where it was in the 1930s to 1950s.

      This is also the end of the process where the Democratic and Republican parties flipped who was Left and Right. And why you'll hear lots of Republicans falsely talking about how Republicans are all about civil rights - the parties are not in the same political positions as they used to be.

    5. Re:It was never Russia. by RedK · · Score: 1

      you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. [wikipedia.org]

      Your own link dispells this myth that it was Democrats who passed it. Look at the actual percentages. The Civil Rights Act had more democratic opposition than it had republican opposition.

      Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment"

      That myth again. For those unaware of US politics, Democrats tend to try to wave away their own party's history of racism through pretending the "parties switched" after the Civil Rights Act passed. LBJ lost that battle and the bill passed. And then the Republicans won the south based on Economic policies, not racial lines, but the Democrats want to pretend it was all the "Racists" that left their party.

      Fast forward today : Democrats are the biggest race baiters and the most racists around, pretending that "Blacks don't have ID! Voter ID is racist because Blacks don't have ID!" and other "Racism of low expectation" type proposals.

      Fuck right off with your race baiting shit.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    6. Re:It was never Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wanted to pretend my group was the "good" one, I'd switch their name tag with mine too. There never was a "swap". Democrats just wish to switch the narrative, since it was southern Democrats driving a lot of the racism, and shoring up the KKK.

    7. Re:It was never Russia. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Look at the actual percentages.

      Percentages don't pass bills, vote counts do.

      Also, you're completely skipping over the Southern Realignment to cling to your false narrative.

      Democrats tend to try to wave away their own party's history of racism through pretending the "parties switched" after the Civil Rights Act passed.

      You realize that politicians literally switched parties, right? And they did so publicly? And described exactly why they were switching?

      I realize actual history is double-plus ungood, but it did actually happen.

    8. Re:It was never Russia. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      So, you claim there was no swap, but the parties are now doing radically different things than they were back then.

      What's it like desperately ignoring cognitive dissonance?

    9. Re:It was never Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um....you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes

      Disingenuous much?

      There were also more democrat votes against it then republican votes against it, because... shocker, the dems had more people in congress at the time.

      Look at the percentages, > 80% of Rs supported the Civil Rights Act in both the Senate and the House, Democrats were in the 60s% in both House and Senate.

      Senate: (For / Against)
              Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
              Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

      House: (For / Against)
              Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
              Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

      Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment".

      Except that's complete garbage. 21 Senate Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act, only one of them ever switched parties, the rest stayed Democrat. The senate seats (and a majority of the house seats) stayed Democrat as well for several decades. If there was a switch, why did it take ~30 years for the Republicans to gain a majority in the House in the south? There was no switch, the entire thing is completely made up.

  27. Re:And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with MORE votes than trump. democracy lost.

  28. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is telling the world that "a high school kid should be thrown into a wood chipper head first because he wore a red hat" divisive?

    Can someone point out a Russian message more divisive than that one?

  29. Enough with this neocon BS by najajomo · · Score: 0

    Enough with this neocon BS, save this kind of thing for Faux News watchers.

  30. Believe as much of this as you want... by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, it's entirely possible that certain Russian groups are having fun screwing with the US. I mean, the US has mucked around in other people's countries for decades, so why not?

    That said, it's pretty stupid to blame the Russians for the current, divisive politics in the US. The locals (I'm in Europe, so I'm not involved here)...the locals are doing a bang-up job all by themselves. Decades ago, conservatives didn't much approve of liberal opinions. Downright Puritan, sometimes. Then came the 60's and 70's, and the progressive movement was born and grew. Since roughly the 80's, the progressives have defined whole new levels of intolerance. If you disagree with them, you are not only wrong, you are evil. It's the reaction to this intolerance, not any sort of Russian hacking, that got Trump elected.

    The progressives just cannot imagine that half of the country actually disagrees with them. It's so much easier to find some external enemy to blame - it's not that the progs are wrong, or that they've alienated half the country - it's those damned Ruskies.

    A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance. Sadly, the idea that the progressives themselves have become the intolerant ones - that differing opinions can legitimately exist - this seems to be beyond their comprehension. Which means that the way forward is likely to be increasingly vicious and even violent.

    It ain't the Russians driving this, it's the progressive agenda, and the intolerant people who support it.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Believe as much of this as you want... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance

      Yeah, I thought so, too. I remember when Trump won the NH primary and HuffPo's headline was all caps "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC!" I thought Trump was going to win since about a month after he started campaigning, and I wondered, "when Trump wins, will the media and the libs on my FaceBook feed reflect and say 'Ohhhh...NH didn't vote for racism and sexism and homophobia...they just want somebody to do something about the opioid crisis that's killing their families and neighbors! Silly us, 60+ million Americans didn't suddenly become Nazis!'" Nope. They just got even more delusional, and concocted elaborate fantasies that Russians spending a few thousand dollars on FaceBook ads convinced their countrymen to become Nazis.

      It's delusional, deranged, and there is no end in sight.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Believe as much of this as you want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your candidate has support of white nationalists, nazis and racists then maybe your ideals aren't the best...

    3. Re: Believe as much of this as you want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happens in a two-party system. Nazis support whoever is slightly to the right, Stalinists support whoever is slightly to the left.
        It's also worth noting that bad people supporting an idea doesn't make the idea wrong, that's a logical fallacy in itself. If I recall correctly, Hitler believed in Darwinism too (in contrast to e.g. the Sovjets and their Lychenkovism), but I wouldn't throw evolution out of the school curriculum because the idea was "tainted by Nazis". (In case you're wondering: no I'm not Nazi, Russian, Democrat, or Republican. Just a European socialist.)

    4. Re:Believe as much of this as you want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to point out, the "conservative agenda" never changed or went away either.

      The same conservative agenda that caused violence and division is there, too, just added to it the liberal one.

      That last sentence is:

      "It ain't the Russians driving this, it's the progressive and conservative agendas, and the intolerant people who support them."

      Liberals need to calm the fuck down. Conservatives need to grow the fuck up. That hasn't changed.

    5. Re:Believe as much of this as you want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll bite. I'm a conservative (also an outlier, as I'll explain, and of course this is just one data point among many / take it for what you will):
      I'm one of the people that ties libertarian / conservatism together (my perspective). Former military / retired. Not a Christian or religious.
      I have some empathy with goals of the progressives, but for reasons they don't necessarily understand. For instance, they want to completely change our entire system because they believe we have ten years before climate change or global warming, whatever they are calling it these days, does us in.
      As a former military member, in the military, I knew that we had absolutely superior military force. I could take comfort in that. However, when we inflicted so many casualties, I also felt a great sense of sadness and loss and would be rather overwhelmed by it at times. The reason I want change is to enable us to have more choice and not be forced down this road any longer.
      Same thing for the drug war - I understand how much damage drugs do to communities around the US but also that we have insane drug law that imprisons massive numbers related to marijuana which is not an addictive drug and which is less harmful than many pharmaceuticals as well as alcohol.

      As you can see, I am perfectly able to think rationally and dispassionately as well as in depth on many issues and develop an individual viewpoint.

      I used to be a moderate. In the years since 2016, the left has thrown so much abuse and so much gaslighting at us that I am no longer that, I am a radical. If I was to guess, I would say that increasing numbers of people are headed to the wings on left and right. We now all hate each other with a passion.

      This of course does not disprove but supports what you are stating.

  31. On Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who ask for Proof, get -1 Ratings..... Because "Proof" is not something liberals need to believe something as "True"

    1. Re:On Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the proof, but it's not what the DNC wants you to be reading:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html

  32. shiv r by sleekgravity · · Score: 1

    hello friend please visit our corporate gift item section

  33. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US isnâ(TM)t a democracy. Itâ(TM)s a constitutional republic. The election worked as intended. The only people who want a hive mind populace of only 6 of the nations largest cities deciding the results of our national elections are the people who are butthurt that they lost.

  34. If you're deciding your vote based on facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... You're doing it wrong.

  35. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF are you talking about? if there are more people voting for X and the result is Y, then your democracy is broken simple as that.

  36. ShareBlue, CTR, etc and Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. How is this different than what organizations like ShareBlue and Correct The Record do? It sounds identical to the accusation in the headline. Furthermore, Israel is far more of a problem than Russia. That is obvious to anyone who is not compromised (likely though the gigantic worldwide blackmail network we've allowed the Zionists to build, just like we let them steal our Uranium to build the bomb), a zionist or a paid shill.

  37. Should be easy to shutdown then by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Since no meaningful public discussion happens on Facebook, it should be an easy balance.

  38. cognitive dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, folks:

    Russian bots == okay.
    NPC == DEHUMANIZING REEEE!!!

  39. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US isnâ(TM)t a democracy.

    I think you missed something...

  40. Massive following by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    What a load of crap. No specifics at all, we are just supposed to take some government official's word that some Russian actor has a "massive" following? Are wen in Russia or something?

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  41. Since 1918 by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    Pro tip: The Russians have been trying to influence elections since 1918 and even before. I'd love to see everyone gets this upset over illegal aliens voting ("THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, YOU RIGHT-WING TRUMPIST TROLL!" Touche', There's no evidence Russia had a meaningful effect on the elections either). It all depends on whose side you're on

  42. Cross-border social media = election meddling by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

    As a non-American on Facebook, every time I voice my opinion about anything related to politics, I am potentially influencing the outcome of the US elections....

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
  43. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake up. We are a republic not a democracy. You should have learned that in grade school. That's why Hillary lost.

  44. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how this is marked as troll, just go read some history about USA involvement and meddling in other countries (are you scared what you will find or is it forbidden to read?)

    Either you start acting reasonable or the shit you are making will just get thicker and smellier.

  45. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully we are NOT A DEMOCRACY.

    Otherwise every ill educated college idiot and illegal alien would vote for destructive socialist candidates and policies.

    Venezuela is only your most recent example of socialisms complete and utter systemic failure. Why can you not read and understand a simp,e history or economics book?

  46. Don't just talk about it, expose the messages by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

    Just saying the Russians are spreading messages is not helpful, the correct course of action is to figure out the messages and let people know. What people don't realize is that they are playing both sides of the fence, however it seems the news only talks about the right-wing disinfo campaigns. We know for a fact that they do the same thing to galvanize left-wing partisans as well, so why don't we expose that? It would do a lot to ensure people on the right that this isn't just about silencing their views, and would help convince them of the problem. Making it a one-party issue only makes it easier for the trolls to defend.

    Myself I became a believer after I encountered a few online who were trying to promote ethnostatism in stilted English while posing as "Americans", in a sports forum of all places. From what I've read stirring up racial animosity seems to be a big part of the plan, including things like drumming up support for BLM while at the same time marshaling forces against it.

    1. Re:Don't just talk about it, expose the messages by vix86 · · Score: 1

      From what I've read stirring up racial animosity seems to be a big part of the plan, including things like drumming up support for BLM while at the same time marshaling forces against it.

      Yep this is the clever kind of stuff Russia did in the last election. They'd set up protests for Political Issue A and then set up counter protesters to show up for the other side. Often times both groups didn't even realize they were puppets for these Russian groups.

  47. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Sique · · Score: 1
    Actually, no.

    Only the communication was not ok. What the citizens voted on was the Electoral College, whose members then elect the President of the U.S.. Each state of the U.S. gets represented by two electors for the two senators (as in the Senate) and by as many members as it sends to the House. And how those members are elected locally, is determined by the states as they see fit. Most states use a winner-takes-it-all approach.

    That by the special arithmetics of the current distribution of votes only two parties sent electors to the Electoral College at all, and that those numbers aren't proportional ot the absolute number of votes across all states, so be it. There is even a mathematical proof that no election system exists that in all cases elects the "right" candidate.

    Voting is just one element of a democracy, albeit a very visual one. More important is the following question: How much blood has to be shed to get rid of an unwanted government? For the U.S., the answer is 'none'. Just wait for the next election day and then elect differently.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  48. Slashdot - News for Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These trolls are especially active and effective here in the Slashdot comments. A good opportunity to discredit western intellectuals (nerds) and their fact-based conclusions. As evidence I submit everything posted above this.

  49. Distraction from massive illegal voting by walterbyrd · · Score: 0

    All you need to vote is a driver's license, and illegals have those.

    No way leftists, in sanctuary cities and states, are going to overly investigate the legality of those voting. Not when it's very well known that immigrants, legal or otherwise, vote democrat 80% of the time.

    While everybody is in a wad about Russia, nobody will notice millions of illegals rigging the entire election process.

    The greatest presidential landside in US history was won by 17 million votes. There are, at least, 22 million illegals, and they practically all vote democrat. Do the maths.
     

    1. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the Republican election fraud in North Carolina you idiotic Muppet fart?

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/us/nc-election-fraud.html

    2. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This literally does not happen.

    3. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      All you need to vote is a driver's license, and illegals have those.

      You know how I can tell you've never registered to vote?

      The greatest presidential landside in US history was won by 17 million votes. There are, at least, 22 million illegals, and they practically all vote democrat. Do the maths.

      You'd think with 22 million cases of voter fraud, the Republican would be able to find at least one case of it. Still waiting on that.

    4. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > You'd think with 22 million cases of voter fraud, the Republican would be able to find at least one case of it. Still waiting on that.

      I did not say 22 million cases of voter fraud. I said there were, at least, 22 million illegals living in the USA.

      And I think they have found cases of voter fraud.

    5. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like the *massive* voter fraud in California and Florida.

    6. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      >> All you need to vote is a driver's license, and illegals have those.

      > You know how I can tell you've never registered to vote?

      You know how I can tell you have no idea how sanctuary cities and states work?

    7. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Now let's be fair.

      There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

      Terri Lynn Rote of Iowa voted twice. FOR TRUMP. She said she did it because Trump told her the polls were rigged.

      Phillip Cook of Texas voted twice. FOR TRUMP. He claimed he was just testing the security of the electoral system.

      Audrey Cook of Illinois cast a ballot on behalf of her husband. Almost certainly FOR TRUMP as she was a Republican election judge.

      Gladys Coego of Florida was caught filling in votes for mayor on absentee ballots that she had been hired to open. There was no evidence she was doing anything to Presidential votes.

    8. Re:Distraction from massive illegal voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And I think they have found cases of voter fraud.
      yup, in NC, by Republicans

  50. you are either completely brainwashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by ver basic propaganda...
    or five eyes operative whose job is to spend all day every day posting carefully designed messages and memes.

  51. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're a US citizen, and graduated high school, then you should sue your school system for not having taught you the basics of the US Constitution.

    If you're not a US citizen then:

    There were huge debates at the Constitutional Convention at how best to deal with unequal sized states. (For example large states such as France and Germany in the EU and small states such as Luxembourg and Cyprus.) The solution was to give Electoral Votes close to the size of the state population and then make it a winner take all scenario for each state. The purpose for this was to prevent a candidate from racking up the votes in a large state and thus swamping, and making irrelevant, the wishes of the small state.

    Imagine you lived in a union where you joined for common defense; had a common currency, open borders internally, and no internal tariffs - but just about everything else left to the states. Imagine there were huge social and economic differences between these states in which there was little to no common ground.

    In the 1780s the main point of contentions were slavery and agriculture v merchant trading policies.
    Today we have other issues.

    This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.

    Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items). Furthermore a resident of a state (say NY) can't buy, own, and keep a firearm in another state. WTF is this? A law that prevents you from legal actions elsewhere. This is like a state making drugs illegal in its state and preventing its citizens from using drugs in another.

    The electoral system is there to prevent the large states from stomping on the small states. If not for the electoral college and separation of powers there cannot be a stable union. Take a look at the collapse of the EU.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  52. Fireye == Five eye? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sometimes they like to shove it in your face.

  53. Re:Slashdot is spreading anti-Russian propaganda by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Yes, I despise the word "divisive." It's used in a very Orwellian manner.

    A: "We want to take your stuff and force you to behave like we want."

    B: "Thanks, but no."

    A: "There you go spreading your divisive rhetoric again."

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  54. Scared guy or evil government? That's the fun! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Anonymity on the Internet is useful to hide from corrupt governments...but they can use anonymity too.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  55. not necessarily inauthentic by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Then it's not necessarily inauthentic

    So, the "problem" then is that they are "amplifying" true things?

  56. Get your excuses ready! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was her turn!!!!!!!

  57. Shutdown is not a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn to spell.

  58. Hahaha from all of us that hate social media by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    This social media thing certainly didn't turn out to be a shit-show or anything.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  59. Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut down social media.

  60. Voice of Russia by havana9 · · Score: 1

    I think that due the proliferation of smartphones and social media spreading propaganda is way, way easier than what happened in the Cold War. To listen to Voice of Russia or Voice of America one had to use a short wave receiver and knowingly what was tuning in.
    Nowadays it's difficult for an user of social media to know where they are readin is coming from, so propaganda is way sthealthier. and really pervasive about it.

  61. Somebody agrees with you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://archive.fo/GmRqZ

    It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses

  62. Re:Hilly for President! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if you need the republicans when you have the russian mafia running the US right wing

  63. Not going to disrupt my vote by GregMmm · · Score: 1

    How about this for an idea. Look at how the candidates have vote or what core beliefs they lean to. Ignore all the stupid "russian influence" and other garbage and then vote. Don't vote off emotions. Ignore all the stupid.

    and shut off Facebook (insert dumb "website" here) and go get some fresh air.

  64. Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Democrats are already lining up excuses for why their terrible candidate lost.

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

      fuck off you stupid vodka stinking faggot

  65. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by greythax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also a key point, at that same Constitutional Convention, it was decided that nothing laid down in that document should not be subject to change by the will of the people, because the founding fathers were wise enough to know they couldn't predict the future, nor lay down a perfect plan to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the people it would protect.

  66. Re:And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's apparently Trump's cult that can't accept that he won. Over 2 years AFTER the election and they're still WHINING about Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it. Trump may still be campaigning against her, but she's not running.

  67. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lol. They don't recognize it for being the farce that it is. They recognize that they LOST because of it jackass.

    All the shrieking and howling that occurred after the election and finger pointing etc proves that the Democrats collectively lost their minds when Trump win. And I say that as a Never Trumper who convinced several people to not vote for him. You guys were literally blaming everything and everyone whether it made sense or not, including people like myself. You can't do that and then be expected to be taken seriously.

    It's like watching a small child having a tantrum, rip apart his room, blame his parents, his friends, his school, etc etc etc... Then suddenly be like 'Its all the fault of XYZ!!!' and expect to be taken seriously. Nope. Sorry Bucky. All your tantrums prove you aren't in a right state of mind right now.

  68. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a huge country made of separate and largely sovereign states, not a choosing of class president in a body of 500 students.
    Again, you fail to understand the difference between a republic and a democracy. Your brain is broken.

  69. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    After Trump won, you say?

    It's almost like you're utterly clueless about politics beyond the talking points you've been handed...

  70. Putin does by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    he needs external enemies to hold on to power. Also, he's managed to gourd us out of a missile treaty that will allow him to openly develop short range missiles that used to be banned. He'll need those if he wants to go after more territory, which with what he's doing in Ukraine he obviously does.

    One of the major problems with Trump and his people is they're not very good at what they do but they don't seem to know or care. As near as anyone can tell Trump got talked into exiting Syria in one phone call from the president of Turkey. Somebody at Putin's level can play Trump like a harp.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  71. Is the GOP annoyed? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

    I mean, the GOP's main strategy is cultivating a divisive climate on hot button topics & in/out-group labelling. They're spending a lot of money on this & are also getting considerable support & amplification from traditional corporate media. Are they annoyed that Russia is spending a fraction of what they are on it & getting all the credit?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:Is the GOP annoyed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, the GOP's main strategy is cultivating a divisive climate on hot button topics & in/out-group labelling. They're spending a lot of money on this & are also getting considerable support & amplification from traditional corporate media.

      Watch how easy!

      The Democrat's main strategy is cultivating a divisive climate on hot button topics & in/out-group labelling. They're spending a lot of money on this & are also getting considerable support & amplification from traditional corporate media

  72. Not exactly by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    the purpose was to shift power from the populous cities (which were full of working class citizens) and to rural areas where the wealthy lived and had their plantations and a tight control on the voting electorate.

    But they don't teach you that in school because it doesn't fit the desired narrative. Anyway, go read a book called "A People's History of the United States" for starters. We are one hell of a fucked up country.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not exactly by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not. And, it's false on it's face.

      Roughly 90% + of the US (the world) was rural before modern industrial farming started in the mid-19thC. According to the US census 5.4 of the US population was urban in 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      First of all urban centers were not large in the modern sense. You couldn't supply the food nor take out the waste. Urban areas were much smaller. NYC, for example, had about 60,000 people in 1800.

      Secondly, there weren't any states with numerous cities.

      Finally, don't argue about things when you don't know what you're talking about. It would be better to do a little research first and see if your hypothesis played out. Take a look at the link I put in. Absorb the information there and rethink your statement.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  73. Even posts on Slashdot by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 2

    So many posts on places even like Slashdot are designed to create vitriol between different schools of thought, political parties, you name it. I don't know how many are pure trolls and how many might just be pissed off at "the other side", but the best way to get past this stuff is to take a step back and evaluate all this stuff pushing our hate buttons. Don't let the trolls control your emotions. Hating everything and everybody is not the best way to go through life. And the headlines of people doing stupid and hate-worthy things do not represent the majority of any subset of people.

    If everybody would post a useful/positive post every time they saw a troll post, it would go a long way to getting rid of the unneeded hate bandwagon going around the internet these days.

  74. Russia is the enemy. Trump is a traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot. McCarthy made wild accusations. Trump is credibly with evidence and guilty pleas already established to be a traitor and money launderer for the Russian mob. Stop lying, GOP faggots, you'll live longer.

  75. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.

    Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items).

    Are you complaining that we have "one-size fits all laws" or that we don't?

    In the case of guns, you might have a valid complaint since the 2nd Amendment should override the 10th. I'm not going to debate the 2nd Amendment here, but clearly the Amendments apply to all states. Isn't that "one-size fits all"? Or do you want the federal government to step in and impose a more specific version of "one-size fits all"?

    Do you have any examples of a "one-size fits all" law that the Federal government is trying to impose on us? Mostly such laws have to do with our rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

    As an American who has freely moved from one state to another several times, I think the Senate is enough to balance the small and large states. The President should be elected by the people IMO. As it stands now, someone in Wyoming's vote counts more than mine and mine counts more than someone's in California.

    The EC was a necessary compromise in our early days to hold the Union together and had a lot to do with slavery, just as the "three-fifths compromise" conceded that slaves were at least 60% human. Back then states also did act more independently and wielded more power, but over time the federal government has gained power and within that, the Presidency has gained power as well.

    What's the point of even voting for President if you live in Texas or California? The state where I currently reside is at least sometimes considered "purple", but it's still quite predictably blue when it comes to voting for President.

    I guarantee you if Trump had won the popular vote and Clinton had won the EC, Trump's supporters would be rioting in the streets. In places like the Fox News comments section you'll see some openly advocating for civil war so the socialists don't take over our country. I really hope they're trolling or that DHS is looking into those posts. Maybe they haven't noticed what civil war has done for Syria in the last few years.

    If you don't think Trump supporters would be so hypocritical to turn on the EC, just look at their idol:

    Here's 3 tweets from 2012 that Trump later deleted:

    “He [Obama] lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!” (Nov. 6)

    “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” (Nov. 6)

    “More votes equals a lossrevolution!” (Nov. 7)

    Those should disturb you, not only because Trump is taking a different position and he wrote "one" instead on "won", but because Obama actually won both the popular vote AND the EC so it wasn't even an issue that year.

    He didn't delete these:

    We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

  76. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most U.S. citizens actually recognize the farce of the Electorate college for the undemocratic system of arcane chicanery it is

    I believe you're right. I wasn't a huge fan of George W. Bush, but I voted for him and while I got the result I wanted I was not at all comfortable with how that result was determined even if I ignored all the problems in Florida. Initially I still supported the electoral college, but it was the first time any of us alive then had actually seen the electoral college go against the popular vote and after considering it for a while I couldn't justify it.

    And to think we could have fixed this before I was even old enough to vote:

    The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971)

  77. The margins Trump won by by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    were thinner than the Garlic slices in Goodfellas. Russia also did a ton of work on Facebook, twitter and other non advertising sites. This coming from an ex-KGB guy that specialized in information warfare.

    I think it's naive to underestimate the effect Russia had on our elections. Doing so will leave us vulnerable to additional attacks. That said, I'm happy to see Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard pushing policy non-stop. Let the CIA spooks, the FBI and Mueller take care of Russian interference.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: The margins Trump won by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Widespread election fraud was the only reason universally-despised candidate Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote.

    2. Re:The margins Trump won by by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      I think it's naive to underestimate the effect Russia had on our elections. Doing so will leave us vulnerable to additional attacks

      Sure, what's not to like about that idea. Not only can you argue for more censorship, but you still get to accuse everyone critical of leftist propaganda as being a russian troll. Certainly that makes the job easier of David Brock shills.

  78. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The winner takes all scenario isn't enshrined in the US constitution. It's an individual's state constitution that determines how votes in the state will be divided up. Some states actually DO split the electoral vote based on the proportion of votes in that state. This is how IT should be done.

  79. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by tsa · · Score: 1

    But Trump had the most people at his inauguration ever!

    --

    -- Cheers!

  80. We should readopt Regan's strategy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hold an election every year and bankrupt the sons-a-bitches!!!!! /s

  81. It's not the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's American civil rights extremists furthering their agenda of seizing control of the USA, through whatever means necessary. "Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile."

  82. Tell it to the warden, Trump traitors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell it to the warden, Trump traitors.

  83. We are a science site.... by LordAba · · Score: 1

    As far as I understand, from the scant amount of sociological experimental research I've done, is that media can PRIME us for certain topics, but doesn't actually influence our opinions on that subject. Meaning that media can, for example, get us talking about guns but won't exactly be the driving force for how we feel about them.

    Granted, if a presidential candidate ticks every box except for their gun stance and media is only focusing on that gun stance, you will miss the rest and might vote against them on the issue (even if their gun stance wouldn't outweigh the rest).

    So if a candidate has one controversial thing about them, and all you hear about is that thing, of course that is what is going to be focused on. Look at the Kavanaugh thing... the media wouldn't shut up about the rape allocations so he got in based on that rather than his voting and statement history (which I personally don't like, I didn't want him in).

    Basically it takes two to tango, and both side are lapping up the priming instead of looking at what really matters.

  84. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your IQ was above room temp you'd know those two aren't mutually exclusive and the USA is,ostensibly, both.

  85. Go read the book I mentioned by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    voting rights were very different then and now. Cities had large concentrations of _eligible_ voters. Today even ex-cons can often vote (as it should be, nothing should cause a person to lose their right to vote, if we have so many ax murders and pedophiles they can swing elections maybe we should do something about that first).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Go read the book I mentioned by sfcat · · Score: 1

      voting rights were very different then and now. Cities had large concentrations of _eligible_ voters. Today even ex-cons can often vote (as it should be, nothing should cause a person to lose their right to vote, if we have so many ax murders and pedophiles they can swing elections maybe we should do something about that first).

      You are right about voting rights being different then. You had to be a landowner to vote prior to 1840. However, most of those landowners didn't live in the cities as you stated. They may have owned a place to live in the urban area but they lived on their plantations in the country. Most of the urban dwellers in that era were merchants who quite often didn't own land. Also, "A People's History of the United States" is rife with errors and bad historical analysis. I blame the popularity of that book for the lack of historical knowledge in Americans under the age of about 35 today.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    2. Re:Go read the book I mentioned by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      In the 1790s about 80% of adult white males could vote. This rose to roughly 100% by the end of Andrew Jackson's term.

      "A more careful examination of the same sources made earlier by Robert
      Dinkin calculated that by the end of the 1780s the qualified electorate
      in the thirteen states probably fell in the range from about 60 to 90
      percent of adult white males, with most states toward the upper end.
      When some of his figures for individual states have been slightly adjusted
      to conform to revised figures given above, his tabulation places six states
      at around 90 percent (New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North
      Carolina, and Georgia), and three states above 80 percent (Massachusetts,
      Delaware, and South Carolina); Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
      Maryland stand between 65 and 70 percent, followed by Virginia and
      New York at about 60 percent, or just below. Revised or not, Dinkin’s
      survey suggests that, across the nation as a whole, about 80 percent of
      adult white males were eligible to vote in the late 1780s."
      http://jer.pennpress.org/media...

      Furthermore most of the new states admitted before 1820 had universal white, male sufferage. By the 1820s tax paying (or being a member of the state militia) began to replace landholding in those states that did not have universal suffrage - example Massachusetts, NY and Maine.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  86. Historical problem? Solveable or only experienced? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Longer Subject: should have been "Can historical problems be solved or only experienced?"

    That would be a really funny version of history if (1) I knew nothing about history, and (2) It wasn't part of your delusional thinking (that leads to the conclusion in your sig). Main responses are (a) Open your eyes (unless you're a troll, in which case you are probably paid not to talk about those self-evident truths) and (b) Accept that the situation has changed since the 1700s.

    If you actually want smaller government, then you need to focus on what drives the government to be bigger. My own theory is that the main drive has become excessively large corporations, corporate cancers that were not really conceivable in those days (even though the East India Company did exist and could have been seen as a warning of sorts). In terms of solutions, the parts of government that deal with corporations could be smaller if the corporations themselves were smaller and less dangerous--which would also have the pleasant side effect of increasing freedom (per my sig).

    As regards support for third parties, it will never work under the winner-take-all system that is hard-coded into the Constitution. It could be fixed through the brilliant innovation (at that time) of a (major) Constitutional Amendment, but we've reached the point of internal division where we can't do that, either. I'd prefer evolution, but change is going to happen, and if the paths to evolutionary change remain blocked, the alternative is rather horrible and messy to contemplate--and there is no certainty that the outcome will be better than the prior mess.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  87. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    But this is just for the president. Which is really not supposed to be the most important elected position. if you want to make a difference, then vote for all the other positions out there, house, senate, governor, state legistlature, dog catcher, etc. But by focusing so incredibly heavily on the president a lot of people are confused into thinking they just need to vote for someone on their side and grant that person dictatorial powers.

  88. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    And yet today we have a strong movement of people who insist that we must absolutely follow the original wording to the letter and we should never dare to try to interpret the constitution for a modern era or even attempt to discern the original intent from the authors' other writings.

  89. MLK was a Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Democrats founded the KKK. There were only more Democrats because there were more total Democrats at the time. I put the actual numbers from your link below.

    > And as a result of the ensuing party shift, many Northern Republicans became Democrats. This is called the Southern Realignment, and it is one of the major reasons why US politics is where it is today, instead of where it was in the 1930s to 1950s.

    So name all those politicians who switched parties? Why didn't the black vote change until the 80s if the realignment was earlier?

    Here's something that covers the shift better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

    > This is also the end of the process where the Democratic and Republican parties flipped who was Left and Right. And why you'll hear lots of Republicans falsely talking about how Republicans are all about civil rights - the parties are not in the same political positions as they used to be.

    Even if we take this all at face value, that means that the Democrats were the racists when that meant literal slavery and the KKK. And the Republicans, who originally split from the Democrats in the then Democratic-Republican party over the issue of slavery, were the racists when racism in the days when the media tells us that milk and the OK hand sign are racist dogwhistles and white people are bad because they have white privilege.

    Meanwhile, MLK was a Republican.

    ===

    The original House version:[22]

            Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
            Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:[23]

            Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
            Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version:[22]

            Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
            Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

            Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
            Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

    1. Re:MLK was a Republican by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The Democrats founded the KKK

      Southern Democrats founded the KKK. And when the Civil Rights Act passed, those same people switched to the Republican party. And that party welcomed them.

      So name all those politicians who switched parties?

      You want literally thousands of names. How 'bout you actually learn about the subjects you claim to know about?

      If you'd love a couple archtypical examples, there's Strom Thurmond, and you can compare his route to that of former KKK grand wizard Robert Byrd.

      If you'd like another example, here's South Carolina's presidental voting history. You'll note they voted Democrat from post-reconstruction until 1964. After that, they've voted for Republicans except for the anti-Nixon-aftermath of 1976.

      So odd that there's such a change if there was no realignment.

      Why didn't the black vote change until the 80s if the realignment was earlier?

      Actually, the "black vote" changed approximately around 1972. There's also the fact that the realignment took a while to completely work itself through since individual politicians were better or worse.

      Even if we take this all at face value, that means that the Democrats were the racists when that meant literal slavery and the KKK

      You realize the KKK isn't gone, right? Also, there's quite a few people y'all need to clean out if you're going to attempt to claim purity.

      were the racists when racism in the days when the media tells us that milk and the OK hand sign are racist dogwhistles and white people are bad because they have white privilege.

      Well, if you actually paid attention to race you'd realize there's just a teeny-tiny mountain of problems you're ignoring to belittle black people. But hey, that's not exactly surprising.

  90. You know what influences an election more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A secretary of state that allows a government diplomatic compound in Benghazi to be attacked because its really just a place to house a server with higher than top secret clearance info called "Special Access Programs" and you are using the Clinton foundation to sell this information and collect the money from this treasonous betrayal.

    When this all breaks out and the dust settles - no democrat is going to get elected president ever again. Obama and Hillary will be charged with High Treason.

    Forget about this Russian collusion rubbish - every government has a disinformation program. You are being distracted from the real issues.

    1. Re:You know what influences an election more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn, same old false accusations, same old ignoring the fact that multiple rethuglican investigations failed to find any evidence. Sad.

    2. Re:You know what influences an election more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the FBI and the DOJ and IRS have prevented the investigation of the Clinton Foundation since Obama was president. Trump is quagmire in this bullshit Russian collusion case as a means to legally lock him from opening up that, because it may be seen as obstruction. Once that Mueller case is done, Obama and Hillary are done for.. and if not, its only because so many other officials in Washington are exposed in this corruption. There is plenty of evidence. When Bill met with Loretta he was telling her to put the focus back on the emails, and away from bengahzi.. Mueller was the bag man for the uranium 1 scandal.. that was leaked in 2009 cables.

  91. TN votes BLUE every election! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's totally the reason why the South, to this day, is nothing but 100% BLUE DEMOCRAT. Amirite?

    Goddamned idiot.

    Racists gonna race.

  92. roffly@murkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You murkins deserve what you elect.

  93. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    This right here. All the senators and other congress critters just aim fire at whoever the president is to cover for their stupidity and crimes. And the main problem here in the US is its about the only bipartisan thing that happens..

  94. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take that elitist scum! Like you know what's better for us. That's complete bullshit, because you don't! And because you don't, we'll need to make sure that a minority decides for you. For the good of the nation. Obviously, we know what's better for you.

  95. trolls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You jackasses have called me a Russian troll more times than I care to count. Unfortunately for you, I'm a US citizen and am going to vote.

  96. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    The electoral system is there to prevent the large states from stomping on the small states.

    This. Nationwide Clinton got 2.8 million votes more than Trump. In California her advantage was 4.2 million. That's exactly the situation Electoral college was designed for: one heavy populated state flips the nationwide vote.

  97. Re: Hilly for President! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You tell 'em, Boris!

  98. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    "we should never dare to try to interpret the constitution for a modern era"

    For some reason, whenever revisionists start to "interpret" the Constitution, it's always an interpretation that reduces personal freedom or gives more power to the federal government. It's almost as though "interpreting the Constitution" is just a euphemism for "ignoring that pesky Bill of Rights".

  99. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good work, Ivan! You've earned a 200 ruble bonus for that post!

  100. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Hardly. Major reinterpretations include telling people who are arrested that they have the right to remain silent and to get an attorney. Loss of freedom?

  101. Re:To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    So facts are considered trolling now?

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  102. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vote disparity equaled one county around LA and one in NYC.

    Both of those places have massive illegal immigrant populations, and do not enforce voter protections.

    It's impossible to know how many illegal immigrants voted for Hillary because they block all efforts to study it.

  103. Re: And it's *TRUMP* that can't accept losing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You nabob, that's not "reinterpreting", it's READING THE WORDS ALREADY WRITTEN.

    For shit's sake learn how to fucking read.

  104. advice on free speech and democracy by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile Tommy Robinson is being dragged back into court again, for the crime of reporting and exposing the corrupt BBC. I wonder how many months of solitary confinement he'll get this time? And comedians like Count Dankula are being unpersoned, made unhireable, and have a target on their back for the crime of edgy humor. All while ISIS fighters are being welcomed back with open arms.

    Yes, please, tell us Yanks more about how we should handle free speech and democracy.

    1. Re:advice on free speech and democracy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      For the crime of being a twat by not waiting a week or two for the trial to end before reporting it. All he had to do was wait so as not to fuck up the trial.

      He martyred himself. It wasn't even the first time, he had to do it twice before they actually jailed him for it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:advice on free speech and democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the crime of being a twat by not waiting a week or two for the trial to end before reporting it.

      You seem to think that that helps your position, it does not. It anything it further proves the need to defend free speech and democracy from the likes of you.

  105. cart before the horse by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    I appreciate the insightful analysis, and mean no disrespect, but it seems as if it'll only amount to a thought experiment while the political sphere is still flush with cash from corporate donations to super PACs.

    Also please consider branching out to alternative subscriber services, such as subscribestar. I didn't find you there.

    1. Re:cart before the horse by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      it seems as if it'll only amount to a thought experiment while the political sphere is still flush with cash from corporate donations to super PACs.

      Kind of irrelevant. The SuperPACs can affect who gets elected, but don't really affect their decisions. The politicians basically come set, and aren't easily bought; it's the media that leads to election results themselves which you can buy.

      Current politicians have a will to solve these things, but not a will to move against their own fear of loss. We can't solve that by paying them; what we can do is dump money into funding a competing politician already interested in making such changes. Consider that the limit on what money can buy and you start to see opportunities you'd previously discounted.

      Don't know what subscribestar is. I'm the sort that would crowdfund something on Kickstarter and not Indiegogo because the split between multiple platforms is irritating and shows different, non-composited numbers to backers (i.e. dishonest). That's also why I don't have a GoFundMe.

  106. would you like to know more? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    We? I doubt the public ever had any say in CIA ops, include Project Mockingbird which was used to manipulate our own press. Then the Smith–Mundt Act gets nullified, allowing the state department to direct its propaganda on U.S. citizens.

    So why would a foreign power be exclusively using 'false' information to attack our own fake news? If anything, truth is a potent weapon against institutions built on lies and corruption.

    Why doubt the truthfulness of the press? Because the one time Trump gets near universal positive coverage, is when he's lobbing missiles at targets in Syria, in the midst of a proxy war where the US gov was actively arming insurgents and islamist fighters. The fires haven't even been put out, and now look who is arguing for intervention in Venezuela, a nation that is sitting on an ocean of light crude.

    Point is, if you want to be utterly misinformed and conditioned to believe false narratives, keep your information bubble confined to the sphere of US corporate media.

  107. Russian trolls ate my dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And at least Russian propaganda is entertaining.