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."
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."
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.