Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda? (rollingstone.com) 335
MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes:
Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda" that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"
The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 "sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda."
The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets (including USA Today), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."
The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 "sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda."
The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets (including USA Today), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."
Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny when the Right screams voter fraud, the left calls them all stupid because they have no evidence.
When he Left screams voter fraud from Russian hackers that they have zero evidence of, we have to waste millions of taxer payer money with lawsuits and recounts.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's anti-establishment nationalists vs. establishment globalists.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not anti-establishment, but those who want to establish their own establishment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you no longer have the right to call yourself "anti-establishment" when your man is about to be POTUS and his party will have majorities in the House and Senate.
Re: (Score:3)
Eh. "The establishment" is the corporate/government/media complex. The corporations pick the policies, their bought politicians enact them, and then their media networks propagandize the populace as to why things that are clearly not in their best interest, like the mass importation of semi-retarded 3rd worlders for cheap labor for the corps, is actually right and moral and good and anyone who disagrees is stupid and evil. Anyone who's opposed to that system can still call themselves "anti-establishment."
Re: (Score:3)
Well first of all, the word "cuck" is nothing more than modern code for "nigg3r-lover"*. It would be more honest if you used that term instead. No idea how sense that makes though. Anyone who criticizes Trump must be a nigg3r-lover? Seeing African-Americans as equal human beings is a no-no again? No clue.
I wasn't meaning this as a criticism for Trump anyhow. My only point is people who are in, or soon to acquire, a great deal of power have no right to say they are anti-establishment. I would hate to see thi
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I agree that extremism is more easily found, I'm not sure if that's because it's more popular or if it's simply because more individuals are willing to express it.
I do believe that both the right and the left engage in logical facilities (you should pardon the pun) left and right. A few examples:
Death penalty and abortion
Reducing taxes and budgets passed
Objecting to "nanny state" (vis a vi public support) by calling it racism, bemoaning food assistance while cutting access to birth control (Family Planning funding)
Loss of constitutional freedoms vs. gun legislation vs. disenfranchisement
Effectively limiting consumer protections (by Strengthening monopolies) while claiming to be pro-consumer
Preventing private right of action and forcing consumers to use binding arbitration (Might as well not even bother, you're not going to win even if you are right)
and on and on and on. I think the average US person has simply either gone nuckin' futz or they are lied to so completely and pervasively as to have no worthwhile information to base a rational decision on. It's so bad that I don't even bother talking to people anymore (haven't for the last 20 years). It's so bad that I am seriously limiting even discussion in fora such as here. Worse, it's no better in other countries, and even worse in some.
I blame it on the commercialization of journalism, actions by special interests, and the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in public (and many private) education. The only answer I've found so far is to simply smile, nod, and back slowly away from the more vitriolic of them, and to not bother with media news outlets anymore.
NPR, PBS, BBC and a few others are attempting to get people talking to each other. So far, I've witnessed this devolve into brutal beatings twice. Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".
How would anyone know whether they disagreed with you? A "reasonable discussion" requires explanations of your thoughts. A list of half-articulated observations isn't something people can "reasonably" discuss.
I'm sure some people will react and emote with you though. And congratulate themselves for being righteous because ... well, mostly because they enjoy thinking they're righteous and better than other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really.
The Left is all about Big State solutions, which comes under the rubrik of "Statist Collectiivism" at the state level and "globalism" at the international level.
The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power
Re: (Score:3)
The Left is all about Big State solutions, which comes under the rubrik of "Statist Collectiivism" at the state level and "globalism" at the international level.
The Right (at least in the US, but increasingly internationally) is all about Individual Liberty. Since there can be no Individual Liberty without decreasing State power it means the Right is about limiting the power of government and letting citizens and the Free Market of voluntary exchange work out solutions. This is because power (the ability to enforce your will on the unwilling) is a zero sum game - the State only gets power by taking it from individuals, and vice versa
I find this to be a weird narrative, although very common in the US it seems. What if the State wrestles power from corporations and other supranational or transnational entities? E.g., let's say the State takes over the healthcare industry and cleans it up big time, slashes costs dramatically, gets closer to universal coverage (like, you can get Medicaid if you earn under $200k, I don't know, that's an example).
I would say this gives more power both to the State and the individuals. (there's always more su
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're pretty much right in regards of the analysis what is happening, but you've subscribed to some propaganda on who is doing what. Because the forces at play in the US are first and foremost authoritarian and to the right (the latter of which doesn't really matter in the scheme of things).
I think this here shows this neatly:
https://www.politicalcompass.o... [politicalcompass.org]
"left" and "right" are solely economic points of view. You could also call them "socialist" and "capitalist". There's nothing in there about "liberty".
If you think there is some great conflict between "authoritarian" and "libertarian" at play there (or even "the Left" or "the Right" are on the side of "liberty"), you've just become the playball of propaganda. Because the only side here that's even playing is authoritarian, and it has won, it sets the policies, and orchestrates the propaganda. Of course it's nice to be able to constantly blame "the other side" for the shit you're doing. Which is what happens. Even if the other side happens to be firmly in your own camp.
Yes, there are people in the US fighting for liberty, but they're not "the Left" or "the Right", they're the ones that don't run your country. At all.
Extremeism lost (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.
Not from where I'm sitting. From everything Trump has said and done after the election, he's actually been quite reasonable - it's Clinton supporters that have gone insane, and during the election were pulling every dirty trick possible to win. Reasonableness triumphed over extremism for once, I'm hoping it's the start of a trend.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh yes. "My side is sensible. The other side is extreme/insane/[insert slur here]." That's some well-reasoned analysis there.
Does your side actually do things to help the people whose votes you want? Maybe telling them to vote for you because you helped them might work better than telling them to vote for you because otherwise you'll call them names.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest sign of extremism for me is when someone takes a stand and declares their side to be the right one and the other side to be the wrong one. Loyalty to a party of faction should come dead last in priorities, Put loyalty to fellow citizens first, even if they have different political stances.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The best part is so far the Wisconsin recount has found a few examples of fraudulent votes - all of them for Hillary. Her vote count is now down by something like 15 in WI.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump said there were millions! We know he never lies or exaggerates. So where are they?
They let the ban on propagandizing citizens expire (Score:5, Informative)
Three and a half years ago the US government, under the Obama administration, let the ban on propagandizing US citizens expire - and immediately began writing and spreading "fake news".
From an FP article dated July 14, 2013 [foreignpolicy.com]:
So the only thing new here is US citizens noticed one of the government's renewed, official, domestic propaganda operations.
Re:They let the ban on propagandizing citizens exp (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I'm dense, but isn't it Congress' job to renew laws that have expiry dates? I skimmed the article but it didn't seem to clarify what I'm confused about. Is it the case that the R team did their right honorable duty as true statesmen to renew that law and Obama failed to sign it? The R team did have a majority in at least one branch of Congress in 2013, didn't they? My memory is hazy.
I mean, good grief. The president isn't a dictator. That's also why I'm not very worried at all about Trump! Trump! Trump! or even Darth Pence.
Also a good reason to have contempt for the D team when it had control of both houses of Congress 2008-2010. They could have passed something less corrupt than Obamneycare.
Re: Yes (Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud) (Score:4, Informative)
It's funny when the Right screams voter fraud, the left calls them all stupid because they have no evidence.
When he Left screams voter fraud from Russian hackers that they have zero evidence of, we have to waste millions of taxer payer money with lawsuits and recounts.
There is a difference between voter fraud and election fraud. Voter fraud is when an individual is able to cast a vote they are not supposed to. So far there has only been 4 cases of actual voter fraud this election. Election fraud is on a massive scale where hundreds or thousands of votes are changed or suppressed. It is easier to change the outcome of an election with a rigged election. Republicans falsely claim that voter fraud is a massive problem, so when they control state legislatures, they gerrymander districts and pass onerous voter ID laws that make it difficult or impossible for people who don't generally vote Republican (usually people of color) to vote (they don't need Russian hackers). This is a form of election fraud (but legal). Other forms of election fraud are tampered with ballot boxes like that has been reported in the Wisconsin recount. Democrats claim election fraud. They are not the same or equivalent. Election fraud can be harder to prove or do much about.
We need a balloting system that is auditable. A recount isn't an audit. An audit checks to make sure the system is working as it is supposed to and that votes are counted and reported accurately. This usually means some sort of paper trail. You can still use electronic voting machines as long as it prints a record that can be viewed.
As a side note, I favor an instant-runoff [wikipedia.org] balloting system so that voter preferences are recorded, so that a candidate in a multi candidate election, a candidate doesn't win with a plurality of votes (Candidate A gets 39%, Candidate B gets 37%, Candidate C gets 24%. Candidate A wins but 61% didn't vote for him).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jill Stein is running a scam
Liar.
Jill Stein has said precisely what the excess will be used for. It's not a scam if the money is going where she says it's going.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence? Ironic and sad that in a story centered on a lack of evidence (Democrats have yet to prove any Russian voter interference) you'd raise this accusation without proof.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, so PA won't be recounted - they've passed the deadline. MI's AG has said he'll move to block the recount, so nothing will happen there. W/o PA, recounting MI and WI is worthless: even if they flip those 2 states to Hilary, it won't change the overall results.
So does Jill Stein have any mechanism and plan to return these donations when the recount ends? Answer is no: she's said that their costs are running higher, but the recounts ain't even happening in PA. Which is a way of disguising the fact
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So does Jill Stein have any mechanism and plan to return these donations when the recount ends? Answer is no:
http://www.jill2016.com/how_wi... [jill2016.com]
By no, you mean of course yes.
No greenbacks for the Greenies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right so someone asking for money to do something and telling what they'll do with the excess is a scam because...?
A scam involves deception. There is no deception here.
Ooooh I see why you're calling it a scam! Trump called it a scam and so you're copying: monkey see monkey do just like a good little trumpanzee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides that, if there is cash left over after the recount is done, she ought to return it to the donors.
Nope. Not if she said up front what she'd do with it. Which uh... she did! There's no deception. And it's not a scam simply because she isn't meeting some arbitrary criteria that you insist she must meet, but the donors seem quite happy for her not to meet.
Just more monkey see monkey do from a Trumpanzee.
ooo ooo eee ooo
Re: (Score:3)
Serious question: is any of the money used to pay for the lawsuits and recounts actually taxpayer money? I thought it all came from Stein's campaign (donations).
From what I've been reading, there are direct costs and indirect costs. The donations are paying for the direct costs. The taxpayers are paying for the indirect costs of the extra people that the counties may need to hire to get the recount done in a timely fashion, especially if the ballots are being counted by hand. The recounts have to be done before the electors meet in two weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing unjustifiable downmods to hide truth on YOUR PART is weak & you know it
I don't moderate on Slashdot. That makes your statement FALSE.
* So fuck off, ok?
You need to something about your anger issues. Venting in public is not healthy.
P.S.=> ANYTHING I wrote is easily substantiatable fact - which just KILLS "your kind" doesn't it? Yes & that's why you tried to "hide it" w/ downmods (which I can post in UNLIMITED FASHION easily to get you to "run dry" of those unjustifiable downmodpoints - lol, you can't even WIN AN ELECTION - do you think you can win vs. me? NO way)... apk
I'm a moderate conservative. We're difficult to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
See subject: Nobody disproved my points (they're easily proven FACTS is why) so I'll do as I please & watch "your kind" RUN DRY of 'downmodpoints' as always, lol... too bad for you & "your kind" ('soros losers', lmao).
I've already told you that I'm not a moderator. I don't have mod points to waste.
* :)
I'm sorry to see that you have a bump on your head. Yes, that would explain a lot.
Also - do yourself a favor before you play "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.' - get a psychiatric sciences degree, a formal examination of myself given in a professional psychiatric environs & a license to practice it 1st before you make a BIGGER FOOL OF YOURSELF showing your "delusions of grandeur" @ being a psychiatric pro with WEAK off topic illogical ad hominem attacks that fail vs. me (just like your downmods ALWAYS do).
Let me guess... you're an L. Ron Hubbard fan.
P.S.=> You're easy to kill - you do it to yourselves everytime thinking you can "push me around" when I shit ALL OVER YOU easily negating your bs... apk
So what?
Re: (Score:2)
* Wasting your own time is your business - it's inefficient & wasteful, mine isn't....
Slashdot exist to keep me amuse while I'm waiting for a script to finish at work. I also love trolling the trolls on Slashdot. Thank you for participation!
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of amusement - I always find it amusing crushing wannabes & pseudo intellectuals like you via easily verified facts you cannot validly overcome.
You're still here? How tiresome. Go play in the street.
Cave (Score:3)
We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.
That's what Russian propaganda wants you to believe, and you are spreading it, being a Putin's "useful idiot". According to this anonymous study, of course.
Re:Cave (Score:5, Funny)
> We are all in a cave, strapped to a stone. Everything is an illusion.
Right, but my iStone is smoother and thinner than yours.
Re:Cave (Score:4, Funny)
Right, but my iStone is smoother and thinner than yours.
My note 7 stone is warmer than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
My note 7 stone is warmer than yours.
Since you're strapped to it, it should keep you warm for a lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cave (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the Allegory if you leave the cave you are enlightened but you can't convince anyone else to leave the cave because they don't understand you anymore and know no better life.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be very painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For you.
Examples? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be really amazing if someone could show me a single piece of this propaganda they can trace to the Russians. Where is the evidence?
Re:Examples? (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, it's bullshit for the reason the summary said- they basically accused Ron Paul of being a KGB agent. If the Russian propaganda machine is secretly vigorously promoting conservative libertarians, free market libertarians, and every right wing blog they can name, give me a fucking break. Just like when they made a list of "fake news" sites that somehow included every single right wing website except fox news, and it was some liberal professor who made the list. Just because the right has loonies doesn't mean that the left loonies should be dug up and given a grand platform to blather.
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only fake news site (besides CNN el oh el) [youtube.com] I saw this election paraded around was the same one NPR talked about after the election. I think it was abcnews.com.co, and it's actually made by a lefty to "prove" how right-wingers will fall for stupid shit. Now, I am a right-winger, and when you sign up for the right your welcoming kit includes a firmly affixed tinfoil hat. So every time I saw something from that site posted to a right-wing forum or comments section, immediately people would respond "that's fake, don't spread that around." So lefty makes fake news, posts it to right-wing sites himself, right-wingers reject it, and then he goes to NPR and says "lol right wingers are dumb because I posted my fake news on their forums." It's the "hurr durr I was just pretending to be retarded" meme.
You would think if this evil russian propaganda were so widespread one could post a screenshot of one of the fake stories and give us some context. "Oh, Putin wants people to think X, so here's his fake site where he posted this story, and here it is being propagated around the net..." Nope. I wonder why they can't show us anything like that? Really gets the old noggin' joggin', huh?
Re: (Score:2)
> Russia stands to gain a lot from Trump's election. Scaling back NATO,
> the US looking inward and playing a smaller role internationally etc.
You realize how Reagan destroyed the USSR? He goaded them into a very expensive anti-missile defense race, and the USSR bankrupted itself. The US military industrial complex is threatening to similarly destroy the US economy. Diverting some of the useless overkill into the civilian economy might help the average person.
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reagan just took credit for the breakup. The actual reason was that the USSR was a multi - ethnic state and when the central government stopped suppressing speech, the resulting wave of nationalist unrest broke the country up among ethnic lines causing several wars between former soviet republics. The first of these wars actually started before the breakup and the last one is the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine - that one used to be a cold war for over two decades.
Re:Examples? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would not be so skeptical. I used to read a lot of Zero Hedge. I still read RT.com from time to time. If you accept that ALL news has a bias, it becomes apparent. In the case of ZeroHedge, their bias is that economy is about to crash, again. And the price of gold is about to skyrocket, any day now. And the American political system sucks, which they are actually correct on.
Propaganda is entwined with the reality of nation states. The United States puts out propaganda about Russia. They do the same in return.
With the internet, the propaganda is more obvious and easier to spread.
The older I get, the more I realize that everyone has an agenda. Zero Hedge has an agenda. The Washington Post has an agenda. The Communist Party of China has an agenda.
The thing is, life is short. At this point, I do not have time to focus on other people's agendas unless they intersect with and further my own.
This whole "Russian Hackers Fucking with Democracy" is the greatest propaganda coup of all time. It still blows my mind that the media managed to completely obfuscate all of the evil shit that the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton were up to by bringing the Russian bogey man out of the closet. (Not that it matters, but I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump).
In my brief 40 years as an American, I was born into a world where we were supposed to be scared of Russians. To being told that the Russians weren't a threat. To being told that the Islamists that the CIA funded to fight the Russians were the threat. To now being told that the Russians and the disciples of those we trained to fight the Russians are a threat.
To be honest, I think the biggest threat to America at this point is America. Between the ignorance of the electorate and the iron grip that the military industrial complex has on the economy and the government, we are like the big, retarded bully who doesn't even know why he's angry, but sure as hell is going to beat the shit out of anyone who calls him retarded.
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Informative)
"We have always been at war with Eastasia." -- George Orwell, "1984"
Re: (Score:3)
The older I get, the more I realize that everyone has an agenda.
Exactly. Everything is propaganda. Bias is a part of human nature. I prefer when people clearly state their biases as it's easier to see where they're coming from. I think a large part of the problem we face is people who believe that such a thing as "unbiased journalism" exists. There are people who don't think CNN has an agenda. And that agenda is not always congruent with the best interests of the viewers.
This is turning into a real problem. When Trump won the NH primary Huffington Post's cover page said
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty sure a Russian news outlet isnt targeting any propaganda at Americans, and in this case the "truth" behind the "propaganda" is that the girl in question was merely the victim of child abuse instead of..... rape?
I'm going to assume that your citation categorically represents what someone would find if they tried really hard to find evidence via google, and that everyone that tried really hard, but you, realized that they couldnt find any.
Re:Examples? (Score:4, Informative)
So a 13-year-old girl declared she was gang rape. A journalist picked up the story and some Russian TV channel talked about it, without making sure the rape was real. This kind of sloppy journalism is common everywhere. I live in Quebec and here absolutely all mainstream media will do it (the only difference is our media will hide the ethnicity of the alleged rapist if he's black or Muslim).
Then Russia's Foreign Minister made a comment implying the German police could try to minimize the case to protect asylum seekers. Considering the German police did exactly that after the Cologne attacks (as well as other multiple attacks in other German cities), also considering that the police admit it was at least statutory rape, yet try to minimize this as "child abuse", I'd say the comment was justified.
Then, the BBC decided to use this story about this sloppy journalism and a somewhat legitimate comment from a Russian Minister to try to spin it into some kind of "Russian propaganda".
The truth is this article is an example of anti-Russian propaganda, not an example of the supposed Russian propaganda. This BBC story is an example of the typical "fake news" that plagues our mainstream media. And the fact that you can't see it is frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that propaganda?
A) A 13yo disappeared for a full day and got raped
B) The police considers it consensual so it won't investigate
C) Parents and neighbors are outraged and protest
Unless you want to believe this:
A) An adult having sex with a 13yo is rape, unless they're immigrants.
B) The police is right in not investigating this and only considering this as an instance of child abuse
C) If white people are protesting, they're neo-nazis.
No, comrades, it's doubleplusgood (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, they won't come for Slashdot. This is News for Nerds, we never discuss things like politics or rights or surveillance...
Re:satire is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
"They're looking at someone else's fake news instead of our fake news! It's not fair!"
Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just another "Not our fault!" lie from Hillary! supporters.
"Look! a RUSSIAN squirrel!!!!"
Hillary! lost 2008's Democrat nomination to an upstart from nowhere despite the process being rigged for her.
Hillary! damn near lost the 2016 Democrat nomination to someone who wasn't even a Democrat despite the process being rigged for her.
Hillary! lost the 2016 Presidential election despite the media doing its damndest to help her.
Hillary! might have had a chance had if she weren't an unlikable corrupt harpy and if she had some accomplishment to her name other than marrying Bill.
Re: (Score:3)
One of her campaign was on Chuck Todd this morning. He ran down a list of things Clinton and the Media have blamed the loss on.
He asked point blank if they ever considered blaming themselves.
And the answer was the longest possible way to say "No".
Some people are so inside their own bubble of a bubble they have no clue what is going on. Look at how many staged "OMG Clinton out Grocery shopping" social media things we got.
I'm over Red Scare.
My grand parents were told to be scared of the russians, but it's not
Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, Americans didn't stay home.
CNN right now says Trump has 62,693,993 votes in the popular vote. That's more than any Republican has ever gotten in the popular vote (closest was George Bush in 2004, with 62,040,610). Obviously, these numbers are influenced by there being more Americans than before, and Trump is at 46.3% of the popular vote, while GWB's reelection was 51%. It is off by a few percent only, however- whatever the magnitude of Trump's thing, it still only affected a couple voters out of every hundred.
For comparison, Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008, and 66 million in 2012, to Clinton's 65 million.
I feel that the solid performance of the 3rd parties this time around is the big thing not being talked about. Gary Johnson in 2012 set yellow team records for a Libertarian with 1.3 million votes. In 2016, he got over 4 million votes- Wikipedia says it is "more votes than the previous eight Libertarian presidential tickets combined", and was over 3%. The Greens got .36% of the vote in 2012, and 1% of the popular vote.
The reason that the 3rd party tickets are interesting is that *both are the same candidates as in 2012*. It is implausible that Johnson and Stein quadrupled and tripled in popularity- it is much more likely that many voters who consider themselves leaning towards the libertarians or the greens, but who usually vote for republicans or democrats, instead did not, driven away by the candidates.
America didn't seem to stay home, is my point- they definitely chose third party options a lot more than normal, though.
Re: (Score:3)
The guy leaves a very good impression. [youtube.com]
Gary Johnson was a good Governor (the only reason he isnt still governor of New Mexico is term limits) but a bad candidate. Sarwark would be a good candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible the Libertarians would have done better with someone else, but given that Johnson has done the best of any Libertarian in the history of the party (twice- his 2012 run was a record for the party too), it seems a bit of an odd argument. I know, I know, the main party candidates are the big drivers here, but performing well in 2012 is still a legit mark in his favor regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Very few people bother to come out to vote against someone. They come out to vote for someone. The only arguments I could ever get from Hillary supporters was "she's not Trump" and "experience."
Recursion (Score:4, Funny)
Wait.... how do we know whether or not this /. post is propaganda about propaganda about propaganda?
This recursion stuff gets confusing sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. It's fake comments all the way down.
FTFY
Same old tune. (Score:2)
Propaganda, insider information, hate facts. Who cares. More power to the Russians if they can disrupt a bunch of corrupt people from getting their way (DNC). I'd love for them to start poking at the Republicans next.
Sun light sanitizes all things. Keep dragging the truth from all the dark holes it is hiding in.
PropOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
When this came to light, PropOrNot edited their web page to list them only as "related projects."
To translate what really happened here is:
The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.
Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.
Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.
If the last decade has shown us anything, it's that this is what people actually want to consume. Even prior to the rise of new media, most papers or news networks had some form of political slant. All we're seeing now is a magnification of this. Most people only want something that conforms to their existing beliefs, not an objective account. Knowing that we've gone from the media producing slanted views of stories towards opinion pieces about events and are now heading towards fabrications or opinionated
Re: (Score:2)
After all those putdowns of the "mainstream media" you praise the doctored and misleading videos that shut down ACORN? Credibility = 0.
Re:PropOrNot (Score:4, Insightful)
To translate what really happened here is:
The Washington Post was duped by a fake article about fake news, and then other publicans were duped by the Washington Post's article about the fake article about fake news.
Not quite a "fake article", but an article based on a report that used a questionable method for identifying "Russian propaganda".
Basically a site was labelled as distributing Russian propaganda if it regularly posted articles that reproduced current Russia propaganda narratives.
That sounds legit, but the problem is that a lot of anti-establishment sites push the same kind of narratives. A story getting pushed by RT as Russia propaganda might also be pushed by an independent site as their own fight against the establishment. And they get labelled as promoting Russia propaganda, which they technically are, but that wasn't their intent.
Journalism is now completely dead, or at least the kind the mainstream media used to produce. Its all now just lazy he-said she-said bullshit where the only filter is the bias of the Journalists and Publications.
You know I actually thought you were being sarcastic when you wrote that first sentence.
The WP article got some secondary reporting, and then it got questioned, typically by those same secondary sources.
Note the first publication in the summary, Rolling Stone, is considered pretty damn progressive. The WP themselves even commented on the matter [washingtonpost.com], though it a much less direct way than I'd like (hopefully their still refining their follow up piece).
Investigative journalism is now only done by independent folk with hidden cameras, and released on youtube. Thats what exposed Clinton's campaign tactics and voter fraud methods, its what exposed and subsequently destroyed ACORN, and so on.
Ahh, so when you say "investigative journalism" you mean actual fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Black people aren't the only ones with camera's you racist shithead.
The problem is indeed that the mainstream does very little to no original journalism, all the stuff about police abuses in the last few years have not been "reported" on by journalists but rather grew on social media into the news articles.
Same goes for this election, neither side had any 'investigative journalists', just a lot of digging up dirt on both aisles but very little substance as far as policies that either candidate had. Pretty m
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
...could we be seeing propaganda about propaganda about propaganda?
Re: (Score:3)
Never fear, Mark Zuckerburg is working on it now! Soon all those propaganda stories will be replaced with paid advertisements.
Somebody mod this story down (Score:5, Informative)
This story need to be modded down in like fashion. Wouldn't want the Russian trolls to have to see the facts of their dear leader's propaganda industry.
Re:Somebody mod this story down (Score:5, Insightful)
That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Further, neither did I say anything about Russian spies. I said Russian trolls who, as you pointed out, deliberately try to insert enough fake "news" or falsify factual stories to divert attention or obscure facts. As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. When confronted with the truth the
Re: (Score:2)
> As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I'm personally totally convinced that this happened, because I saw it happen in real time as did you. Even slashdot wasn't immune to this, IMO, and I absolutely saw it on other forums.
This is *totally separate* from the "Russians helped Trump" claims, however. Trump has huge organic support among his base, as witnessed in the primaries. I did see a bu
Re: (Score:3)
That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.
There are paid Russian shills for sure, but no matter how extreme I'm always skeptical that any particular poster is a paid Russian shill. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, and there is no shortage of stupid people on the Internet.
Wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
I admit I don't keep up with this stuff. I thought the North Koreans were the bad guys I was supposed to be terrified of. Now it's the Russians? The vodka people? Damn, I only have so much time to be afraid. Make up your minds.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
immune system flanked (Score:2)
Who knew that fact checking was an essential component of the human immune system?
Hillary lost because people don't like her (Score:5, Insightful)
The "fake news" narrative is getting old. She didn't lose because of "fake news", she lost because people don't like her and because poor folks don't see Democrats in power and think "my problems will be solved" any more.
No one is going to vote any different based on telling stories about Russian influence, even if they're true stories. And you won't be able to censor the Internet effectively. If you try to, it will backfire on you.
If you want the next Democrat candidate to win, here's a suggestion for Democrats: help people. Don't just pick fights. Don't just point and jeer. Actually do something to genuinely help. Do it with a motivation to help rather than to get even with people you hate and maybe help someone in the process. Help Americans to get votes from Americans. Help a broad, inclusive population of people if you want votes from a broad population of people.
If you don't want Democrats to win, then just keep fighting. Keep calling everyone a racist or some other name. Cater exclusively to SJW crybullys who want to scream about transgenger microaggressions and cultural appropriation. Keep doing nothing for regular people. And keep telling yourself you lost because of "fake news".
Re: (Score:2)
^ A million times THIS
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't lose because of "fake news", she lost because people don't like her and because poor folks don't see Democrats in power and think "my problems will be solved" any more.
As has always been the case, its the economy, stupid!
You don't get voted in when people are getting fucked by the things you support.
Re: (Score:2)
What you said is true, but at the risk of igniting derision in many subsequent comments, Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election. This has been endlessly 'litigated' on /. but the fact remains that some people's votes don't count as much as others in the presidential elections and Hillary got the majority of the lower weighted voters. In total more people 'lik
Re: (Score:2)
Given a different system, people might have voted differently. Hillary might or might not have won in that case. Anyone can make up whatever story they want about something that might have happened but didn't.
She still lost because people don't like her -- the "more than" or "less than" someone else doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary also lost because the American system of presidential elections (for better or worse) weights some votes more than others so that the winner of the popular vote loses the election.
Oh, I get it . . . you're talking about the Superdelegates' votes, right . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news ... it's a problem because it's being systematically and purposely used to poison discourse and destroy the entire political system of your country
For a lot of us, it was poisoned to death at least 10 years ago. And we said so at the time, and no one cared.
A cataclysmic one, for which the whole world will pay dearly.
Speaking of "truth", please explain how you know the future.
It's simpler than that (Score:2)
"The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months"
You mean, roughly coinciding with HRC's failure to mobilize her base, and dawning recognition that she wasn't simply going to ascend the throne as planned?
Rather than invent a giant Russian hacking cabal, it's simpler to recognize:
- fake bullshittery news has been with us on the internet since...the internet. Election seasons in particular have always been rife with "did you hear" watercooler talk.
- its far easier to blame "them" on the inte
Re:It's simpler than that (Score:4, Interesting)
In Soviet America (Score:2)
Propaganda Russianizes You
Most likely. (Score:2)
I know from personal sources what US intelligence black-ops and their propaganda moves are capable of and have pulled of in the past to manipulate the public, so I'd say it's pretty likely.
Then again, that doesn't make Mr. Putin a nice guy or his regime an oderly one. It's just that the public US debate gives the Russians to much power and their own system to much credibility IMHO.
Yes we are ... (Score:3)
... always blaming Russia.
"Honey, I took the garbage out like you said, but the fucking Russians put it back!"
We can't comfortably blame China, because we need them.
Anyone will buy into the narrative that "Russia did it."
We knew it was bullshit when the US said, "It's Russia, but we don't know if it's state actors or an individual or individuals."
Any of us can "be" Russia at any time.
--
In any case, the elephant in the room is, "Why can't the US protect the data it owns?"
This Russia narrative directs criticism away from the real problem.
And ...
The DNC leak was an inside job.
They only got EMAIL!
Anyone who could have gotten to the other stuff: donor lists, employee personal data, SSN, ground strategy, candid political assessments, etc., would have done so.
Russians my ass.
Media concern about fake news ironic (Score:2)
Only after the election, after months of telling us Clinton had a lock on the election, NOW the MSM is suddenly howling about "fake news."
Methinks they doth protest too much.
Re: (Score:2)
You're very clever young man (Score:2)
The sink not the source is the problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That may be the best possible outcome. Extreme skepticism is preferable to extreme gullibility.