Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign (nytimes.com) 263
Facebook is preparing to announce that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November's midterm elections, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing three people briefed on the matter. From the report: In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week, the company told lawmakers that it detected the influence campaign as part of its investigations into election interference. It has been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two of the officials. Facebook is expected to announce its findings on Tuesday afternoon. The company has been working with the F.B.I. to investigate the activity. Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues. Update: Facebook has confirmed the story, adding: Today we removed 32 Pages and accounts from Facebook and Instagram because they were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior. This kind of behavior is not allowed on Facebook because we don't want people or organizations creating networks of accounts to mislead others about who they are, or what they're doing. We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this. But we are sharing what we know today given the connection between these bad actors and protests that are planned in Washington next week. We will update this post with more details when we have them, or if the facts we have change. It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder.
Don't be surprised... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For Fuck's Sake, can people even read the summary. The reason these people are being dinged isn't because of election interference (well, except that's why FB cared), but because of fraud. Because people set up groups that sounded like they were affiliated with the DNC, or the GOP, or the NRA, or Black Lives Matter, and are causing havoc that way.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this new? Both sides have sock puppets purportedly on the other side, whose only purpose is to make their opponent look fucking stupid.
That's right. Rosie O'donnell works for the Republicans. Nobody is actually that stupid. Bill O'reilly, same but opposite. Rachel Maddow, Young Turks, all the same story. Scratch a moron, find a sock puppet.
i know what we need (Score:2)
SocialmediaSecurityAgency needs to be formed up mandated by congress. I am sure it will just as effective as TSA.
US Interference (Score:2)
So if Facebook finds an American firm working on Brexit or the CIA trying to spread disinformation in Egypt, are we going to get a headline when Facebook uncovers it?
Re: (Score:2)
American firm, or do you mean American government? Because evidence is showing that the Russian *government* is attempting to influence elections around the world, not just Russian firms. Certainly the US has been involved in covertly trying to influence elections - in the past. Today the US influences elections publicly. Nevertheless, having the US being underhanded at some point does not imply that we should welcome election interference from a foreign dictatorship with open arms or try to deny that i
"coordinated inauthentic behavior." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder.
Also known as an arms race.
Well well well, look who the pages represent (Score:4, Insightful)
I wondered, why is it that the summary mentions not just what kinds of false organizations were present that had to be removed?
Following the story link you can see for yourself:
"Aztlan Warriors", "Black Elevation", "Mindful Being", and "Resisters."
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way. Kind of funny that was not mentioned in the summary. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
It makes you wonder if groups are going to all the trouble to create false fronts on Facebook, how many people you see at protests are really there because what they are protesting, or how many are there to be paid to stir up trouble - I have thought a lot of Antifa people are probably not really wanting to burn cars/buildings, but that there are selected individuals added to stir up the mob just to create chaos.
Re:Well well well, look who the pages represent (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way.
That's because the goal is to split the Democratic vote. Much like one of the main goals in the 2016 efforts was to hurt Democratic turnout.
The people who are going to vote for Trump and allies are gonna vote. If they're still on board, they are REALLY on board. They are as excited as possible, so they do not need a program to boost their excitement. Fox News is sufficient to keep them going to the polls.
It's the opposition that is more fickle in going to the polls, so you apply your efforts there. Get Trump-regret people to just stay home instead of voting for a Democrat. Get Democrats to be so upset at some DLC-ish candidates that they continue to stay home or vote third party. Warn DLC-ish Democrats about the horrors of Socialism coming from these crazy Millennial candidates so that they don't vote for the Democrat in their race. And so on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much like one of the main goals in the 2016 efforts was to hurt Democratic turnout.
No, the Russians, just like every major media outlet in the US, the DNC, the Clinton machine, and every other foreign government, were convinced that Clinton was going to win. Their main interest was in stirring the pot to keep her machinery off-balance, busy with domestic squabbling, and less able to arrive at a coherent policy position unpleasant for Russia. They knew that Clinton was in no way a creature of character, but of poll-based position taking. The better the chaos, the better for Russia. Of not
Re: (Score:3)
That's the dumbest spy-novel plot I've ever read.
So let me see if I can parse this:
1) if it was backing Trump, it would be proof of collusion and Russians gaming the system to gin up support for Trump
2) since it's backing Democratic causes, it's somehow "splitting" the Democratic vote?
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered, why is it that the summary mentions not just what kinds of false organizations were present that had to be removed?
Following the story link you can see for yourself:
"Aztlan Warriors", "Black Elevation", "Mindful Being", and "Resisters."
It is interesting so I actually looked into it. What they are doing is like before, setting up events so that opposing groups would appear at the same place. The obvious conclusion is that they are trying to create a violent political event to create even higher tensions in the US.
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way.
The point (in this case) isn't to promote one side or the other, it's to create violence.
It makes you wonder if groups are going to all the trouble to create false fronts on Facebook, how many people you see at protests are really there because what they are protesting, or how many are there to be paid to stir up trouble
Considering the Russians are in Russia, it would say it's very few. However, we do know of one Russian agent: Maria Butina [washingtonpost.com] who infiltrated
You miss an even bigger picture (Score:2)
That Russian Agent ( Maria ) Has stronger ties to Oabma (met with his administration) than the NRA (basically did nothing with them).
Make of that what you will... that and the fact that Obama did nothing about Russian interference despite being warned about a year in advance the Russians were trying to interfere.
What you and others have overlooked is that Obama obviously worked with Trump and Russia to prevent Hillary from being elected. It also fits with Obama being a stronger supporter of Russian actions
Re: (Score:3)
That Russian Agent ( Maria ) Has stronger ties to Oabma (met with his administration) than the NRA (basically did nothing with them).
The disinformation is strong with this one.
Make of that what you will... that and the fact that Obama did nothing about Russian interference despite being warned about a year in advance the Russians were trying to interfere.
Thanks disinformation guy but Obama actually did warn us but McConnell would only agree to a severely watered down warning. [washingtonpost.com]
What you and others have overlooked is that Obama obviously worked with Trump and Russia to prevent Hillary from being elected.
LOL! Where did you get that idea from, infowars?
It also fits with Obama being a stronger supporter of Russian actions that Trump. Trump has actually double-crossed Russia, once he was elected Trump proceeded to act directly against Russian interests (just ask 200 dead Russian mercenaries in Syria).
What you refuse to acknowledge is that Trump doesn't always agree with what the administration does. He's out of the loop on what actually happens because he refuses to even read basic information about what is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump inauguration.
Trying to burn buildings, Berkeley, Milo speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way.
No shit, Sherlock—this only being the entire point of the exercise and all.
Re: (Score:3)
#cutthecheck (Score:2)
Because while we're busy fighting amongst ourselves, we're barely paying attention to what our betters are doing in attempts to pass pro-globalist treaties such as the TPP, and laws that turn "fair use" into "fair pay". [euronews.com]
That warm, wet feeling on your leg really isn't the Bilderberg elites pissing on you, with all the money that goes towards the NGOs and PACs that actually fuel the activist groups and astroturfing agencies that drive most of the chaos, discord and divisiveness. No, it's Russia making it ra
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty hilarious, none of the Bernie supporters I knew (including myself) were bots thank you very much. I like the causal assertion that is true with no proof - you Democrats sure do like falling hard for #FakeNews.
Re: (Score:2)
Might this [wikipedia.org] be the phrase you're looking for?
Folks, (Score:2)
They got me.
Leaders: don't fight the people (Score:2)
Get them to fight each other and they won't care what leadership does.
Facebook Has Identified ... (Score:2)
... Ongoing Political Stupidity By People Who Should Goddam Well Know Better.
Who is behindthis? (Score:2)
We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this.
It will be really fun if they discover it is the a US political party... or some internet tycoon... or an US security agency... or a foreign country considered as an ally...
With the way Trump's trade policy is going (Score:2)
Republicans will find it easy to find the same "possible collusion" between Democrats and agents of China - who now is as desperate to avoid Trump as the Russians were with Clinton - especially if they commission another dossier from a supplicating ally (looking at Australia).
Agents of China buying 100k worth of US social media presence? Pocket change.
Re:So Now Facebook is the Gatekeeper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, most people agree that there is a huge difference between people eligible to vote in an election trying to influence each other, and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
I wonder why it is you didn't know that?
Re: (Score:2)
Like La Raza?
Re: (Score:2)
..and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
This is very much a recent (and entirely-artificial meme), as virtually every nation on Earth with an intelligence agency has been doing this de rigueur for a lot fucking longer than the ignorant plebs realize.
Re: (Score:2)
..and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
This is very much a recent (and entirely-artificial meme), as virtually every nation on Earth with an intelligence agency has been doing this de rigueur for a lot fucking longer than the ignorant plebs realize.
You are correct, but please expand on your point. Why does that mean as a country we shouldn't try to counter it or at least expose when it's happening? Analogously, just because thieves have trying to steal private property for ages doesn't mean we shouldn't make people aware of new lines of attack so they can secure themselves.
Public knowledge moves slowly, and I don't think the public generally appreciates, even if it's obvious given some thought, how much astroturfing can take place on new forms of comm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every nation on earth with any power tries to exert political influence on foreign nations, always have. The Assyrians were trying to influence Egyptian politics in their day.
The smart ones use a light touch, the dumb ones act like Obama during the last Israeli elections and produce the opposite of their desired result.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have two explanations for the general reaction of some to reports of interference in the election (and in particular Russian influence).
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls.
2. If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Since for the dedicated Trump base, that's an impossible scenario to even contemplate, outright rejection of any evidence is the only way out of the cognitive dissonance that such ev
Re: (Score:3)
If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.
It may, but probably not in any actionable way. Even if collusion is proven, the most that could happen would be impeachment and then Pence or Ryan or whoever would become president. The only way we would see a lot of chaos there is probably if Democrats gain a House majority and then both Trump and Pence are implicated in something where both of them get impeached, then we would end up with a Democrat as president. There are a lot of huge "ifs" there though.
Personally, I find it more likely that Mueller
Re:Wow, 2 logical fallacies in 1 sentence. Well do (Score:5, Informative)
I don't mean delegitimization as in impeachment and removal. If the Dems take the House, impeachment becomes a possibility, but even if they do manage to take the Senate, it would probably be by the same margins the Republicans hold it now, which means they won't have the 2/3s vote to remove Trump, so I think removal is incredibly unlikely.
The effect of delegitimizing Trump is more an issue of political capital. If Mueller draws a straight enough line, even if it isn't straight enough to pull the plug on Trump's presidency, and in particular if the Dems do very well this November, delegitimization will greatly reduce cooperation between Congress and the Administration. Even with a Republican-dominated Congress, there's already talk of Congress taking back some of the powers (particularly trade powers) that had been "loaned" to the President, and you can be sure that such delegated powers would start to be stripped from the Executive, particularly if the balance tips towards the Democrats. The President has a lot of constitutional powers all his own, but a lot of what he does is essentially statutory in nature; Congress has passed laws allowing the Executive to do lots of things in many areas of government, and if Congress decides it can no longer trust the Executive, whether out of misdeed or incompetence, or in this situation, simply because the Presidency lacks the political credibility, that is where a loss of legitimacy could see the White House become isolated. And Trump would hardly be the first president to find himself largely shoved in to a corner, and the powers of Congress and the courts to restrain the Executive could make it pretty miserable for him.
The problem for the Republicans in general is that they're stuck between the rock (Trump himself) and the hard place (that solid Republican base that is loyal to Trump). The base can't win a lot of races for them, but they will win a lot less races if that base abandons them. So right now, with mid-terms just a few months away, they have to at least keep bailing water out of the hold to maximize their chances. I think to some extent they're probably overestimating the threat the Democrat's represent; the House is in play (and will likely flip) but the Senate is most likely to stay in Republican hands, though with pretty similar margins as they have now. I think the act of tying themselves so firmly to Trump will in the long run do them more harm than good, and at least a modest break with him, at least on specific files, would probably assist them, but obviously they have their own metrics for that that indicate otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure there's a portion of that 30% base that could potentially slip, but in general my assumption is that the GOP has done a good enough at attacking Rosenstein and Mueller that the bar for the kind of evidence for malfeasance to see any significant portion of that base abandon Trump would be very high indeed. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidity as it were, but simply that the environment is so polarized that even hard evidence isn't likely to see any significant erosion in his support.
For the Re
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
People are saying collusion isn't illegal...
Collusion is just descriptive shorthand for "conspiracy to defraud the United States" which is an actual crime that is being investigated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you're not going to be that strict, I'd definitely draw the line at foreign government/interests using social media as tool to manipulate and disrupt our elections, - which is quite a bit different than using social media to promote your own candidacy
Re: (Score:2)
Trump broke campaign finance laws. We have tapes proving that in the public domain now.
So we know he is guilty of something, it's just a question of how much. I'm thinking he probably lied about not knowing about his son and campaign manager meeting Russians in his building with his name on it where his campaign was based.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's just a factually incorrect statement. Look at the indictment against Papadopoulos, for example. I haven't looked at all of the other indictments, but that one example is enough to disprove your claim of zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Micheal Flynn. George Popadopolous. Paul Manafort. Two of whom have plead guilty. Popadopolous has admitted he lied before Congress and actually did have illegal contact with the Russians. As has Flynn.
Unless you want to claim his campaign manager, a man named as one of his foreign affairs advisors, and his Nation Security Advisor who worked on his campaign and spoke at his nominating convention have nothing to do with him.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary made me despise her all on her own with her snobby bull and that "deplorables" statement.
How did you experience her behaviour, or hear about her 'deplorables' comment? Was it in person, or was it presented through some reportage?
Where those reporting that behaviour doing so because they noted an uptick in interest from pieces like that? Did they remain 'topical' for longer as a result of manipulation of systems used to judge 'newsworthiness'?
More, it's easier to smear someone than to persuade that someone is worthwhile. Persuading someone to vote for Trump is difficult. Making Hillary a less ap
Re: (Score:2)
The crime being investigated isn't "did Russia cause every voter to vote for Trump". It isn't even "did Russia cause the election to change" (although with the difference in the election being less than 20K votes in 3 medium->large states, there's definitely an argument). It even isn't "did Russia interfere"- we have that answer already. Its "did the Trump organization work with them". If they didn't, then they're free and clear. If they did, then they committed a crime and should be punished for s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A little evidence goes a long way to support claims.
Regardless, what you need to determine is whether or not a crime was committed. It is obviously not illegal for any arbitrary person to attempt to influence an election. That is specifically what politicians, PACs, etc do during a campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing stopping a foreigner from buying an add on a billboard for a candidate? Why is this any different.
Nothing stops them from buying it, because billboards in America don't have to be pre-approved by the gubermint. Nobody stops you from putting it up, but then if you do somebody might get arrested; you, or maybe the person who accepted the ad buy.
Laws are enforced in the US after they are broken, not before. So you're right, this isn't anything different at all. Perhaps you just didn't know it would be illegal? Luckily, the people selling the billboard space usually do know. But foreigners are allowed to op
Re: So Now Facebook is the Gatekeeper? (Score:4, Insightful)
The saddest part of all of this is the idea that people are forming political opinions based on what they read on FB. That to me is the biggest problem we have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...I mean, it could be Hillary and clan....
[ducks}
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we care about all the other countries and/or intenational groups or individuals that are also attempting the same stuff. Why not a single story that talks about anyone but Russia?
Listen, there might be other countries with some level of misinformation and propaganda, and nobody is saying those propaganda campaigns shouldn't be stopped, but nothing has been uncovered of the scope and scale of what Russia has been doing. It's a little like saying, "Why doesn't anyone care about all the jaywalking that goes on? Why does everyone keep talking about the serial killer that murdered 35 people?"
You have to have a little perspective. One of our biggest adversaries has been aggressively t
Re: (Score:2)
What scope and scale? Buying Facebook ads? Are you joking?
A concerted and sustained effort to hack the DNC and Hilary Clinton. The successful hacking of various election systems across the country. A massive propaganda campaign that included Facebook and a dozen other sites. Coordination with one of the campaigns to fix the election.
Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
But no, go change the subject. Talk about Media Matters.
Re: (Score:2)
It's phishing and largely undifferentiated shitposting. The only reason they might have, but probably didn't, affect the election is because the Dems ran about the only candidate that could lose to Trump in a general election. For example, their entire campaign would have HURT Trump had Bernie been the Dem nominee.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason they might have, but probably didn't, affect the election is because the Dems ran about the only candidate that could lose to Trump in a general election.
That's entirely irrelevant. Even if you totally ignore who the candidates were and which one won, it's still a huge problem that Russia is engaging in such a big campaign to hack and influence our elections.
The fact that phishing was a component of the "hacking" and shitposting was a component of the propaganda campaign doesn't make it any better. That's like saying, "Don't worry that your wife was murdered. It was only stabbing. It's not like she was shot or something!" The precise method isn't at is
Re: (Score:2)
It's a "huge problem" that's been going on, in some form or another, for pretty much all of human history. it's also a huge problem that is occurring with corporate interests, and that has more actual effects on Americans than foreign interference.
I'm not saying that it's nice or good. But it's rout
Re: (Score:2)
> Most likely, the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign government swayed the outcome of our presidential election. How is that not a big deal?
You mean a hostile domestic government.
C.T.R/ share/blue are doing exactly what you suggest, and the legacy media and social media are all in on it.
This whole russia excuse is a laugh a minute when you can see actual americans being silenced every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is evidence that points to Russia. There may be other countries doing this, but there is little evidence. Russia is engaging this in a big way, not just as a small hobby for some retired politicians. No other country seems to be close to this scale. It only compounds things that Russia is an adversary.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is evidence that points to Russia.
Not in this case. They said they have no clue who is doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we care about all the other countries and/or intenational groups or individuals that are also attempting the same stuff. Why not a single story that talks about anyone but Russia?
Why not change the subject with a Russian propaganda technique [wikipedia.org]?
Re:So Now Facebook is the Gatekeeper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Would be nicer if we could collectively be intelligent enough to not use social media as a source of news and information.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
My friends and family represent a very diverse range of people from all walks of life. Getting my news and information from Facebook means that I get exposed to a lot of different angles and ideas; and it's generally filtered by things that I think are im
Re: (Score:3)
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
Yeah.
Seriously, I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. Even for-profit media (yes, run by an actual corporation!) is preferable to a bunch of uninformed idiots "just asking questions" without a single shred of proof between them. Look at back in 2016 when "fake news" was a bunch of people creating inflammatory posts to spread through social media with the goal of page views and advertising dollars. Look at how well those people did (5-figure incomes every month), and look at who they targeted. They targe
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that this could be taken to mean, "I get my news from memes and random inflammatory posts", which is not what I meant at all. A meme can contain commentary, but certainly not information; only a link to an authoritative source can do that. What I consider my "news" on Facebook generally does come f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, the people who made so much money peddling fake news would and do disagree with that statement. They target conservatives for a reason. They straight up say that trying to target liberal audiences didn't work because it would get fact checked in the comments. If you want me to do the research and find that interview I'll be happy to. I'm sure you'll prefer if someone else verifies that instead of you.
Second, I did not vote for Clinton. Trump voters bought a lie but I didn't get robbed, I knew my
Re: (Score:3)
But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
No way. "FB" chooses it, and makes it appear to you that you are choosing it.
"FB" can feed different things to different people. "Mainstream media" usually cannot - and if it develops that capability then it is also beginning to become dangerous. Using targeted communication, opinions can be swayed seriously over time if a sustained intelligent campaign is continued. Even if not "swayed" - they would be pushed to extreme ends of their spectrum in "FB"'s quest for your attention.
Re: (Score:3)
traditional news agencies that are held accountable.
The best comedy is always in the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Yeah, but apparently we aren't, so the next question is, how is this going to work?
I don't think Facebook's job is to decide what influence is desirable or undesirable, but at the same time, they've put themselves in the position of responsibility. If they do nothing to control the situation, it doesn't make them less responsible. They're still responsible for making a powerful tool of mass manipulation and then failing to prevent abuse.
I think the goal should generally be to create transparency. If va
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Facebook is just trying to appear more relevant than it is. They could have just silently "fixed" it if it is a problem, or report it to FBI if what was supposedly done is a crime. Instead they chose to make a press release.
On a related note, now that we all know that some news are are supposedly fake and some supposedly real, as if we hadn't before, and that it is difficult to make a distinction (every two views are complementary, goes one law of general systems theory), isn't that enough? If I lik
"inauthentic behavior?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believing crisis actors exist (they do), and that false flags exist (they do), doesn't mean you believe the event to have not happened. It doesn't mean you believe that innocent people weren't killed.
It merely means you believe it was planned and that the official story is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's cut the crap. The people who are passing these theories don't even have a coherent explanation for what they think went on. They just babble on, instead of actually having a complete theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some non-fake news: humans are more like Ferengis than Vulcans.
I agree. Vulcan aren't like Ferengis at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the good old days when journalists reported the news rather than trying to create it.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 60's there was this one guy, Walter Cronkite (google him) something like 90% of Americans believed it when he said anything.
He retired mostly because he started feeling like he was the ONLY Journalist who reported the News, without distorting it.
Hmm. Google cronkite stalemate. His editorializing single-handedly turned the tide of American public opinion against the Vietnam War.
Re: (Score:2)
And for good reason. The whole war was a sham and a farce.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but it's bullshit to say Cronkite was an 'objective journalist'. People just trusted him, never had his 'Dan Rather moment'.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said he was. I referred only to the Vietnam War as a sham and a farce.
The enemy of my enemy is my...well fuck I don't even care, as long as they take each other out, or one preys on the other.
Not that you asked before putting words in my mouth that I didn't ever say, but the farce and the sham that was the entire buildup to the Vietnam war and the war itself didn't happen over the preceding decades without a ton of help from the news media.
Re: (Score:2)
Was a pawn battle in a larger war. That is all it was.
You should be grateful the Soviet Union is only a bad memory and Vietnam has a healthy capitalist economy, no thanks to Cronkite.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest threat to democracy is people who can't handle information. People who listen only to their own filter bubble and believe anything that somehow fits their narrative, no matter how ridiculous and overblown it might be. Remember Pizzagate? The idea that some of the "elite" run a child porn ring in a pizza parlor? It does not get much more ridiculous than that, but lo and behold, you found people who believe it, amplify it, retell it and eventually, well, if EVERYONE says it, it MUST be true, right
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
Nah, we just named a journalism award after one of the guys who invented yellow journalism. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies."
Predestination.
The Pilgrims believed that before the foundation of the world, God predestined to make the world, man, and all things. He also predestined, at that time, who would be saved, and who would be damned. Only those God elected would receive God's grace, and would have faith. There was nothing an individual could do during their life that would cause them to be saved (or damned), since G
Lies, damn lies and religion (Score:2, Flamebait)
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
If you believe that then you have never been exposed to a church. In the words of George Carlin, "you have to stand in awe, in AWE of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest! Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told."
Maybe it is time that we teach our kids to be more critical.
To teach someone to think critically first requires being able to do it oneself.
Verifying information is hard.
Sometimes but not always. Much of the time it barely requires any real effort.
Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier.
That's hard for people who have been conditioned to believe what they are
Re:Lies, damn lies and religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier.
That's hard for people who have been conditioned to believe what they are told from a young age. You know, like in a church...
Or a public school...
Re: (Score:2)
True, that. Church and schools have become very similar in the way they teach. When you have pupils being sent to the principal because they correct the teacher (who was wrong) and get punished for correcting the teacher because it's more important to believe what the teacher tells you than to learn what actually is, your system is fucked. Rip it out and redesign it from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a public school...
Only crap public schools which are either underfunded, or run by a bunch of locals according to their religious preferences (which goes back to the church again).
Many of us attended public schools that taught us critical thinking skills and prepared us for university. Then came along a multi-decade effort by religious conservatives to underfund public schools, close them, and replace them with for-profit "charter" schools and home "schooling," with the results we see today: only a tiny minority know how to think critically, the rest just buy into whatever propoganda (usually right-wing, but not exclusively so) that is put before them.
Where I come from public schools hand out scientifically sound information, churches hand out information based on the writings of ancient mystics. Thankfully the churches here mind their own business for the most part and don't give much credence to the more loony things written in their scriptures. Given the choice I'll trust the public school but then I don't live in the big convoluted mess of a society that you are describing.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies.
I think that's slightly naive. For as long as there's been information, there's been misinformation. I'd sooner place the problem as being inherent to human psychology, that we hear what we want to hear, believe what we want to believe, and we're easily manipulated. If you think you can't be manipulated, that just means you're easier to manipulate.
Now there are some other factors contributing to our problems. For one, we've had a long period of peace and prosperity. You have a bunch of people who are
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the good ol' days, we had different media competing with each other and trying to out-do each other with investigation. Back then, a sensational story was something that did probably hurt a powerful figure (Watergate comes to mind), but at least it was something that wasn't completely fabricated.
Today, we have increasing media concentration in fewer and fewer hands, leading to fewer and fewer actually different voices (just because there are 5 networks doesn't mean jack shit if they all belong to t
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I think we agree that the current situation isn't the same as what the American people were contending with a decade or two ago. The Internet and social media have made a bunch of things worse, and I think the problem of deepfakes (or other video forging techniques) is likely to cause some big problems in the future.
I just disagreed that we have no history of being subjected to false information (or outright lies).
I kinda feel compelled to try something like this, for scientific curiosity, of course...
Please don't. Aside from the political strife it's likely to cause, we just don't need
Re: (Score:2)
What I meant by the "no history of being lied to" is, in comparison to dictatorships. Nobody in the former Soviet Union actually believed anything they read in the Pravda. It was a given that they'd lie, embellish and simply tell you whatever you're supposed to hear. These people had pretty good senses when it came to detecting bullshit stories.
Out here in the "free" world it seems we're too used to, or rather, we're too convinced that we have, independent media that may tell the truth and contradict the "o
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree on one point. The US has been subject to false information and outright lies for decades. See the "Pentagon Papers" for an example. That is just the tip of the iceberg. It was a bumbling attempt by inept and unpracticed individuals. They have gotten better at it.
You are 100% correct though, that the filter bubble is the problem. Being a part of a political party in the US includes never admitting your party is wrong, never holding your own leaders accountable, never publicly calling out wro
Re: (Score:2)
More "whataboutism".
Why is it important how or when it started? Shouldn't it be stopped regardless of how it started? Isn't the important thing to protect our country now? Why does anything you say matter to the question of how to stop it from happening in the future?
Moreover - if any of the people you mentioned committed a crime, great, charge them for it. If not, then enough with the "whataboutism", it is not helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
The Rs and Ds have had an election cheating contest going for living memory.
Neither side can tolerate any daylight on election shenanigans. Which is why they _always_ back off these claims officially, leaving only true believers on both sides wanting real investigations. But it's mutually assured destruction and everybody (over 30) at the DNC and RNC knows it.
The hopeful thing, Trump might _not_ know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they do anything illegal? If so, charge them. If not, stop with the "whataboutism."
Past actions do not excuse current crimes, regardless of who is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is selective outrage. If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence, they probably wouldn't get all that much push back (relatively speaking, obviously,because someone on the internet will be upset about everything).
But if you are focused only on Russia, then it's a scapegoat based on the results, not the underlying bad behavior.
And while pro-Trumpers obviously have that mindset, it's also a sentim
Re: (Score:2)
If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence
There might be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance among people who support the Citizens United decision but are upset at Russia. There are certainly a lot of people who are upset about both though.
It really comes down to what's criminal behavior, though. The Supreme Court has already decided that American corporations are free to influence elections. The rules are different for foreign citizens and people working with them.
It would be great if Citizens United was overturned but I don't see that rea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Rosenstein committed a crime, why isn't he charged? Also, it's "perjury", not "purgery," and his name is "Rosenstein."
Let me know how to fire Roseinstein and get someone who isn't corrupt into the DOJ and I'll get her charged.
OK. Trump can fire him for any reason or none at all. Congress can also impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which include perjury. So if he actually committed perjury or another crime it should be a pretty easy process. If he hasn't, then it's not as easy. A couple Republicans have already drafted articles of impeachment, but they don't allege perjury. Wonder why. Must b
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely possible—for those who know what they're talking about—to employ m-dashes here.