FBI Tracked 'Fake News' Believed To Be From Russia On Election Day (cnn.com) 352
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The FBI monitored social media on Election Day last year in an effort to track a suspected Russian disinformation campaign utilizing "fake news," CNN has learned. In the months leading up to Election Day, Twitter and Facebook were the feeding grounds for viral "news" stories floating conspiracies and hoaxes, many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton. On Election Day, dozens of agents and analysts huddled at a command center arrayed with large monitoring screens at the FBI headquarters in Washington watching for security threats, according to multiple sources. That included analysts monitoring cyber threats, after months of mounting Russian intrusions targeting every part of the US political system, from political parties to policy think-tanks to state election systems. On this day, there was also a group of FBI cyber and counterintelligence analysts and investigators watching social media. FBI analysts had identified social media user accounts behind stories, some based overseas, and the suspicion was that at least some were part of a Russian disinformation campaign, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
They looked for it (Score:3, Interesting)
OK. What did they find? Or is the answer to that question (maybe even the question itself!) "fake news"?
Re:They looked for it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Democrats & neocons act like Fake News is something that requires a state actor. Despite the fact that anybody on a laptop can put together something on a website, broadcast it on FaceBook & Twitter, get enough retweets and soon, the thing has a life of its own.
During the Cold War, US diplomats could tell their Soviet counterparts, when confronting them w/ photographic or video evidence, that pictures don't lie. That changed since computers became popular, along w/ Photoshop and video editing
Re:They looked for it (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy to make fake news, much harder to create a coordinated system and message to shape opinion. Think "news cycle" rather than "story."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
" . . . many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton." What was fake about those negative claims? I'd believe almost anything negative about Hillary. Well, maybe not the one about her drinking the blood of young children, but nearly everything else.
Just because you believe these claims doesn't mean they're true; it rather means that people are telling you what you want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And just this moment on a Russian aircraft carrier docked off the Siberian coast, a banner unfurls that reads in Russian, "Mission Accomplished."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???
Careful, you gotta use the right language here: they didn't just "influence" the election, they "hacked" it! If you don't use the right terms, people might start thinking the Democrats fucked up really, really badly, and we can't let that happen or the people who spent decades getting all that political power might find themselves out in the cold, unable to pay for their third summer home in the Caribbean!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for this post. No matter what side of politics one stands on, you've stated proven facts that have been corroborated for a long time now, and are a real cause for concern.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???
Careful, you gotta use the right language here: they didn't just "influence" the election, they "hacked" it!
Two different things Boris, but thanks for the conflation attempt.
If you don't understand that your comrades had information that was quite targeted to very specific places, you haven't been paying very close attention.
But then therre is the very specific term "Hacked" If you don't know that voting machines have been quite effectively hacked, and by us I've been trying ot find the cite from 2005, but it seems to be a little hard to come by these days, but an outfit, http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not what they are doing is demonstrating fake news by producing fake news, you see, the FBI working in partnership with corporate media demonstrating exactly how fake news works. The real story is about click bait ie fake news presenting itself as fake news with only one purpose, generating advertising clicks. So the fake news story Russia, real story, how fake news is used as click bait in order to generate advertising revenue. Fake news of more specifically click bait news comes from all over the wo
Would that include fake news (Score:2, Insightful)
targetting the Trump campaign too?
Y'know the stuff that was played out here on slashdot as well? Or are we only running this as a propaganda campaign that anything and everything attacking Trump was true but everything attacking Hillary was Russian fake news?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Would that include fake news (Score:4, Informative)
False. Provably so. How many electors are there? HINT: It is orders of magnitude lower than 2.86 million.
President Trump won the election with 56% of the vote for President. SOURCE: US Constitution [archives.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except for the 14 CONSECUTIVE quarters where Obama had 2.6 or higher!
Re: Would that include fake news (Score:4, Interesting)
Which disinformation? Which motive? (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly which points of disinformation were being spread that are provably false? (No, obvious lunacy like being a satanic blood drinking whatever don't count.)
What makes them say it was a campaign of influence rather than clickbait for ads?
Re: (Score:2)
Proving that VRWC lies are more deadly
Umm, Hillary didn't need any help (Score:2, Insightful)
...many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton.
Trump and Clinton were arguably the two most hated presidential candidates to run in US presidential election history. They didn't need the "help" of fake news to have material on which to attack each other as there was no shortage of negative true information about them.
The key difference was that every little thing Trump did was held up by the media (and the Republican establishment) as a harbinger of the end of modern civilization if Trump were to get elected.
On the other hand, every thing tha
Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help (Score:5, Insightful)
" was largely treated as non-news by the same media."
It was being reported, but the media kept saying "oh, this isn't a big deal" while anything Trump did was reported as the end of days.
Had the news been impartial, Clinton easily wins, but the media couldn't help themselves and made the whole system look corrupt and pre-planned.
What's funny is when Democrats say that Hillary was treated unfairly by the media. Are you kidding me? Her downfall was that she was treated too well that it was obvious the whole system is corrupt...and that she was so confident throughout, as if she was daring voters to try and stop her pre-ordained presidency.
Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help (Score:5, Informative)
Had the news been impartial, Clinton easily wins, but the media couldn't help themselves and made the whole system look corrupt and pre-planned.
The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.
The DNC on the other hand....
The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.
Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.
The DNC on the other hand....
The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!
Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.
No, it's corrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.
Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.
I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).
I was reading about the DOJ slush fund [breitbart.com](**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.
This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny [wikipedia.org], 11 California counties have more registered voters than adults [breitbart.com], all the leaks and outright disobeying of executive orders from the WH.
And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless, then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results, then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?), leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander, and rioted for weeks. They thought all this was OK, if it somehow got them to their goals. For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots, and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.
All this *in addition* to the Sanders thing, and getting special treatment in the press and for the debates, blocking reasonable voter registration, and suppressing the military vote. [washingtontimes.com]
There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out. The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.
I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence [dailysignal.com] on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...
(*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.
(**) DOJ plea-bargains where the offending company pays its fine to charity, but the DOJ only chooses charities that promote left-wing causes.
Re:No, it's corrupt (Score:4, Informative)
I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).
I was reading about the DOJ slush fund [breitbart.com](**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.
Why not Teapot Dome, Credit Mobiler, Iran-Contra, Enron, and Bernie Madoff?
This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny
And liberal ones. Who both needed to file proper reports to meet their non-profit status.
Even Congress had to admit it was all proper in the end.
11 California counties have more registered voters than adults
You can't blame California for Steve Mnuchin, Tiffany Trump, Jared Kushner, and Steven Bannon, who nonetheless, remind us, it's not a crime. Despite false claims [latimes.com] otherwise.
And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless,
I pleased with the EC delegates to quit myself, it might be the only thing that gets us past that broken system.
then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results,
No, the Supreme Court acted in 2000, unlawfully overriding state courts for their own partisan gain.
then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?),
Like those massive crowds of people that Trump (falsely) claimed were there, huh?
leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander,
Oh wait, you mean when they leaked Trump's fake pictures of Time Magazine covers, right?
and rioted for weeks
No, that was Chicago celebrating winning the World Series.
For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots,
Also she didn't condemn the sugar plum fairy.
and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.
Trump called for it himself [thehill.com].
blocking reasonable voter registration,
No [nytimes.com], that [nytimes.com] was [thenation.com] the GOP [usnews.com].
and suppressing the military vote.
sure man [snopes.com]
There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out.
Sure man, and what else are they discussing? Why they can't find the dead bodies in the Pizza Parlor?
The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.
Is that why they keep getting more voters?
I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence [dailysignal.com] on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...
Actually, the Republicans in Congress are still busy chasing their tails [go.com] over Hillary.
I gues
Apply the metric (Score:4, Interesting)
(*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.
Whether the Republicans are also corrupt is only a question an idiot would have to ask at this point. If they have a different level of corruption, it is not apparently significantly different, so that question is not already answered, merely irrelevant.
Your first response is to name calling.
It's interesting, because I've always held that the Republicans were cold, selfish Scrooge-like people who don't care about others.
Coming through the election, I've just now realized how poorly based that opinion is. When I mentally gauge the amount of hate and loathing from the left to come up with a "compensation" metric, and if I apply this metric to some of the widely-held beliefs that I've been told over the years, many of them evaporate.
Republicans are more charitable [google.com] than Democrats, for instance.
Apply your own metric to well-known memes about the Republican party, and what do you come up with?
And then look up some actual statistics. You may be surprised at the results.
Re:Apply the metric (Score:4, Interesting)
Republicans are more charitable than Democrats, for instance.
Well no. They make more tax-deductible contributions, but so much of that goes to religious organizations that spend the money on actually abusing people that they actually wind up giving less money to actual charity.
And then look up some actual statistics. You may be surprised at the results.
You have to look at meaningful statistics. Not just how much money they're giving away, but who they're giving it to, and how it's being spent.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is name calling. The head of the EPA is a clear example of a spectacular level of corruption. The depth and breadth of nepotism in the Trump administration is staggeringly bald-faced corruption. The televised oval-office ass-kissing was the work of sycophants who could hardly be expeted to represent their constituents when faced with a challenge which might impact their careers was nothing more than a cavalcade of corruption. Asking the FBI for a pledge of loyalty was deeply corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me? Her downfall was that she was treated too well
OK, having seen the way the US media treated Hillary Clinton, I can only conclude you did not watch any of the coverage.
Trump got a free pass on anything stupid he said, the only thing you heard about Clinton was "Email", "Podesta" and "Lock her up". All charges that were later dropped once the Republicans got in. The media, especially the Murdoch media was so biased against Clinton it was funny, it wasn't even subtle.
I have no doubt the Russians manipulated the US election, an unstable US with econom
Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help (Score:4, Interesting)
...many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton.
Trump and Clinton were arguably the two most hated presidential candidates to run in US presidential election history. They didn't need the "help" of fake news to have material on which to attack each other as there was no shortage of negative true information about them.
And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.
The key difference was that every little thing Trump did was held up by the media (and the Republican establishment) as a harbinger of the end of modern civilization if Trump were to get elected.
Actually, pretty much everything Trump did was completely ignored by his base, serious questions weren't answered, and he's fulfilled a lot of low expectations of him. But then, so has his base, who is still championing his successes, declaring his Christian morality, and insisting that the rest of us give him a chance even as he denounces all his opponents for standing in his way.
On the other hand, every thing that Hillary did (and there was lots: evading federal records laws, flipping on "don't ask don't tell", flipping on gay marriage, colluding with the DNC on debate prep, colluding with the DNC on subverting Sanders' campaign, the highly questionable financial arrangements of the Clinton foundation, etc.) was largely treated as non-news by the same media.
Is that why they reported on it incessantly?
So, in summary, there was absolutely no shortage of negative news on Clinton, it was just getting ignored by the news media.
Except for all the stories.
The copious amounts of them. Taken seriously.
Meanwhile, so is the clown.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.
Would that also be like the claims by the media, DNC and so on that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about grandkids? Or is it just a case that the FBI lied, the DNC and Obama administration covered it up, and the media directly worked with both to try and bury the story. Enjoy these FOIA documents, because the whole gigantic clusterfuck of collusion, lies, and complete bullshit from the previous administration and DNC is coming home. [aclj.org] You can read the summarized version [zerohedge.com] including the emai
Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. (Score:2, Insightful)
What you're describing really boils down to average Americans in general getting sick and tired of the leftism that has been forced on them recently, especially over the last decade or so.
These average Americans are tired of the hypocrisy and contradiction that leftists continually exhibit.
Average Americans are tired of seeing huge numbers of illegal aliens flow over America's borders uninhibited, and they're especially tired of the economic distortions these illegal aliens bring. Average Americans are tire
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And yet more Americans voted for Hilary.
Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. (Score:5, Insightful)
More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. And since then Trump has become one of the most unpopular presidents since presidential polls began.
So tell me again how exactly you have a window on the "average American".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GP addressed this.
304 electoral college votes went to the Republican candidate in the 2016 election. Only 227 went to the Democratic candidate. (The popular vote is irrelevant. It's the electoral votes that matter.)
34 of the state governors are Republican. Only 15 are Democrats.
32 of the state legislatu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking at the ACA repeal failure and I'm seeing an extremely divided Conservative movement. And really, when have the Republicans since the post-war period ever actually delivered on smaller government when they've had the chance.
Most Republican lawmakers and strategists know very well that while lots of conservative and libertarian voters demand smaller government, few would ever accept the consequences of what that meant. As the ACA repeal failure shows, there is absolutely no will to roll back any e
Re: (Score:2)
And really, when have the Republicans since the post-war period ever actually delivered on smaller government when they've had the chance.
Well, that's pretty much my point. Democrats sometimes mean what they say. Republicans? Not so much. I'm pretty well fed up with both parties, but they're not the same. They're just two parts of the same machine.
Here's the hard reality of democracy. Voters often have no idea what they need, or have often contradictory views on problems and solutions.
Actually, voters usually do know what they need. They just don't tend to give a shit about anyone else's needs.
Re: Average Americans are just fed up with leftism (Score:2)
Apparently congress is never popular. Presidents can be, but usually it doesn't last.
Re: (Score:3)
So tell me again how exactly you have a window on the "average American".
I've got a window on their voting habits; they stayed home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is slumping in some of the states he'd need to win, presuming he's even in the race in 2020. So it isn't the same situation it was nine or ten months ago.
And Congress is doing an admiral job of restraining Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
I spent my time at fivethirtyeight, where it was made clear that while Clinton held the advantage, Trump's pathway in the last weeks was not insurmountable. A 20-30% chance of victory is a fairly significant chance of victory. Yes, some other aggregators put Clinton's chances well in excess of 90%, but Silver and his team were far more cautious, and in several articles made clear some of the flaws in the ground-level data, particularly in some states (I believe he went into some detail about states like Mic
Re: (Score:2)
Nate Silver gave Trump about a 1 in 4 chance, so your claim is factually wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you like about something so trivial to disprove?
https://projects.fivethirtyeig... [fivethirtyeight.com]
He gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning.
Re: Average Americans are just fed up with leftism (Score:4, Informative)
It's only a 100% chance once the ballots have been counted. Up until election day (or at least a few days before), Clinton still had the better odds, but she did not enjoy perfect odds. You do understand the nature of probability, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Talk the voters. Give good speeches that good people want to attend.
Jobs, health care, security, less wars, making the USA great again.
Talking and listening to people all over the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
the highly questionable financial arrangements of the Clinton foundation
Citation needed.
Oh wait, there is no shortage of fake citations about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your next talking point is just an ad hominem. Figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I don't like Hilary Clinton. But I like you much less. You are a slavering right wing rumor mongering nut who disgraces all technologists, if you even are one.
The NYT article you linked lays out some interesting and potentially troublesome background, yes, but does not accuse Clinton of wrongdoing. There was an FBI investigation, but apparently based on a book [huffingtonpost.ca] written by a Breitbart editor: some New York agents were feuding with the Justice Department and basing their investigation in part on media ac [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If a candidate cant give a good quality speech in the different parts of the USA?
That person will not win a US election.
Staying on the elite east and west coast won't win a US election.
This is from CNN? (Score:2, Insightful)
oh the irony!
How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? (Score:4, Informative)
As consumers of news, how can we be sure that this news story isn't an example of "fake news"?
The article says
The FBI declined to comment for this story.
And it repeatedly includes stuff like
Sources say
and
according to multiple sources
and
according to two sources
and (once again!)
according to multiple sources
The lack of concrete details and information leaves me very uneasy. It makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to independently verify what is being claimed.
Should I play it safe and assume that this article may just be "fake news" until proven otherwise?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Sources Say"
Probably the biggest Fake news provider in History.
Any news without attribution of a real person should automatically be classified as "Fake News".
I bet WaPo ruses the day it first used that term.
Re:How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess we shouldn't have believed Watergate, either. After all, that all came from "unnamed sources."
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you find a nickle in the mud doesn't mean you should wallow in the mud hole.
Need specifics (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Need specifics (Score:2)
This! I was just trying yesterday to recall...wasn't this a case of a poorly worded email from an IT staffer saying the phishing email was "legitimate " instead of illegitimate "? Basically a poor choice of words where an improper prefix changed the entire meaning of his advice? Serves as a great lesson to us in the field to REALLY spell things out 2 or 3 ways, like "DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK. IF YOU DID ALREADY, COME SEE I.T. IMMEDIATELY. THAT IS ALL"
Re: Need specifics (Score:3)
Some IT staffer did apparently tell Podesta that it was a legitimate email, and that he should immediately change his password, when the advice should have been that it was NOT a legitimate email, and change his password using (link goes here).
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good point. This "expanding the circle jerk" phenomenon happens quite a bit in policy circles. Someone puts out a paper at the end of a project, with dubious conclusions, and it's picked up by scores of others who want it to be true, and it grows exponentially. Yet the original source is deeply flawed. And yet, there are scores of sources restating the flawed conclusions, including MS
Re: (Score:2)
How can the Russians be responsible for the foolishness of a single American?
Russians can be found responsible both for perpetrating cybercrimes and interfering with the election, an act of war.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure every slashdotter here knows how to send you an e-mail from "Russia." Just as I'm sure the Russian's know how to send an e-mail from America.
distractions (Score:2)
The real evils are not even indicted.
Where is Hillary? Loretta? Dick? Herbert? George? The list goes on!
If they're less bad than we know they will not be jailed.
The real problems are way closer to home.
The real problems get no policy.
And the empire declines even further.
At some point the arabs will stop using JUST dollars for oil.
At some point the many, MANY military bases around the world will have to be evacuated.
Those are the signs that the rest of the world recognises
Why is this interesting to anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it: why does anyone care. Foreign government has an opinion, published propaganda pieces supporting it. Opinion happens to be about another government's elections.
Tell me the US government doesn't do this. Tell me just about any country on earth doesn't do this. This isn't news, it isn't even interesting. It's just the continuing progressive drumbeat, as they try to not let their "fake news" Russia stories die.
tl;dr: Hillary didn't need any help losing the election.
Also: For anyone who hasn't fi
Re:Why is this interesting to anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, by that token, why doesn't Russia simply come out and say "this message was brought to you by the Russian Federation"?
I'll answer my own question: because nobody would believe the message. And they'd be right.
Yes, everyone does this; it's called "information warfare". This doesn't make it good for the target country.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually find RT usefhttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10953959&cid=54946717#ul. I just keep in mind that it's Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump talking with the Russians is normal and expected behavior. How can we expect him to influence them if he never talks with them? The Issue is his lying about it, as that makes it looks like he's doing something underhanded and dirty.
Troll doesn't mean what you think it means (Score:2)
The mod you were looking for is "flamebait". When I give my actual opinion, that is not trolling, and if you think it was, you do not know what trolling is.
This comment is "offtopic", not a troll or flamebait. HTH, HAND!
Re: (Score:2)
If you want eight years of Trump, keep doing what you are doing. The basket of deplorables will repeat the feat out of spite for a second time.
They are not going to get the chance to do that. Trump will be out of office before they ever get a chance. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating is so low that I could beat him while standing at the podium saying what I'm saying here now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Le's bet. I will put up $1000 says that Trump completes his first term - you put up $100 that he is out of office. That's 10:1 odds. Want to take the bet?
No, but I'll give you 1:1 for a dollar. I could always be wrong, and I'm a cheap bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so not too strong in your convictions then...
My convictions are stronger than my bank account.
Clinton News Network CNN (Score:2)
Fake news? Like HRC was a shoo-in? (Score:2)
I remember election night. I knew who was going to win, but I turned on the computer, poured myself a drink, opened the political sites, turned on news radio, and waited for the fait accompli bloodbath to commence. Everyone knew who was going to win. Because we'd been told in poll after poll after poll.
Similarly with Brexit. We knew it was going to fail, because poll after poll after poll said so.
Very suspicious. That's the real fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference between countries' fake news (Score:2)
US fake news is not a result of solely government action. It's primarily a result of heavily biased private media. The US government does not have an official news organ (PBS is, to some degree). US fake news is primarily a result of private media and business interests aligning with a political party, which are wholly private organizations (which many people often forget and the illusion of being public entities is pushed heavily by the parties).
Other country's fake news comes straight from the governmen
How do we know Russian influence stories are true? (Score:2)
Because that's when right wing trolls flood the comments section of such stories with their drek and moderate all other posts into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. The Russians are already here. And the guy in the White House is laundering money for them.
How about US interference in other countries? (Score:2)
It seems a fair question: the US has a long history of interference in the democratic processes and/or governments of literally DOZENS of other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change). So why are people so upset if a foreign power plays that game on their own soil?
Well, there is always the Hillary get out of jail (Score:2)
What she did was unwise but in the end not worth prosecuting.
'N word' please, 'Fake News' from Russia (Score:2)
The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming
Trump won, move on!
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the Russians be coming? They're already getting just about everything from Trump it's in his power to give. Putin's getting a green light to screw the Ukraine, Trump's handing him Syria on a plate, and even while Trump was yapping at China to control North Korea, his buddies in Russia increased trade with Kim's regime by 73% just in the first two months of this year.
The Russians are having a great time right where they are, thanks to their lap dog in the White House.
the standards on foreign interference (Score:2)
.... got really low.
Every single government uses propaganda against other countries, even friendly countries (BBC publishes sneaky anti French articles on a regular basis)
Re:I wish Slashdot would quit perpetuating fake ne (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not American so maybe I've missed something despite my best attempts at following the events in the US closely but I am under the impression that there are several investigations underway into the Russia thing. So how come it's possible for people to claim anything to be proven, one way or the other, when the guys looking into it (Muller, the senate committee, etc) have not come out with anything yet as they're still gathering data?
I've always considered /. to be a place of (mostly) rational, science-oriented people who understand the importance and value of due process and following the evidence, but yet people from both the left and the right alike are proclaiming that they know the end result of the investigation(s) before it's even remotely completed. What the fuck is up with this shit?
The presence of this kind of rhetoric to me is worrisome because it reeks of 3rd world pseudo-Orwellian BS. People in their own little bubbles with insane amounts of confirmation bias absorbing blog posts masquerading as news and becoming convinced that they know the truth ahead of time, so that when the investigation(s) finally conclude, no matter the result, half of the people will be up and arms and shouting 'Conspiracy, conspiracy, I know the result is false, I read so at [insert news/blog outlet of choice] several months ago, clearly the establishment/'deep state' is [out to frame the innocent president/corrupt and in the back pocket of a corrupt president and lying to protect him]".
Democratic systems require an informed voter base to function. Once that is gone, once the public can be spoon fed tailor made propaganda and manipulated with relative ease into believing nearly anything without hard evidence, then the entire concept of accountability goes out the window, and truth stops mattering, by which point you might just as well elect a king and be done with it.
-1984
Re: (Score:2)
Here I sit without mod points. Thank you for posting this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to spot Soros funded narrative control, especially on Slashdot when you can just AC instead of creating a bunch of sock-puppets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a politician. I am an elected member of the State Level Executive Committee of the Texas Libertarian Party. I don't come to Slashdot for politics.
I absolutely hate all the fake news about Donald Trump.
Trump isn't a Libertarian - he's far from supporting my views, but I find myself defending and supporting him constantly. Why? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FAKE CRAP ATTACKING HIM.
I'm a crusader against bullshit. I really, really disliked Obama, but there were occasions when rumors circulated on the right about
Re:Agreed, 110%... apk (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump isn't a Libertarian - he's far from supporting my views, but I find myself defending and supporting him constantly. Why? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FAKE CRAP ATTACKING HIM.
That's not a reason to support Trump. It's a reason to support the truth. You're not inherently defending Trump by attacking fake news.
On the other hand...
The whole Russian thing is completely made up.
That's a stupid thing to say, and you are a stupid person for saying it. Trump and his relatives and his cabinet have lied at every turn about their various ties to and meetings with Russia, and not by accident, either. They couldn't have been accidents. If they have nothing to hide, why are they lying so much?
Russia isn't even our enemy!
Russia is not our enemy on paper, which is why what Trump has done is not treason. You have to be aiding the enemy, and Russia is (on paper) our ally. We are the left and right fists of the UNSC. But Russia is not our friend. Russia is a competitor.
They're like that guy we've worked with on a couple of projects but he doesn't come to our house for Thanksgiving or anything.
And he's got a penchant for poisoning people who disagree with him, and he's fond of spreading a lot of rhetoric about what assholes we are. You wouldn't actually invite him to dinner, at least, not if your kids were going to be home. And you'd lock up your valuables.
Re:Agreed, 110%... apk (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Russia story is made up, why did Flynn lie? And why did Sessions lie? And why did Trump Jr. lie? And why did Jared lie? All about meeting with Russians?
You'd think if it was such a fake story that they wouldn't keep lying about it. They'd just tell the truth.
Re: CNN is the source of Fake News (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: CNN is the source of Fake News (Score:5, Interesting)
Originally, people talked about fake news like "Clinton has brain tumor and only 6 months to live" or "Birmingham in the UK is a 'no-go zone. Something that's been made up and has no basis in reality.
That's quite a bit different than being mean to Trump or a false story that was retracted and the people responsible were held accountable.
Now I won't say they have the highest quality stories, but they're a fare cry from the absolute lies that you'll see from right-wing sources.
Re: (Score:2)
She'll be too sick, Chelsea is a non-starter.
I think they nominate Warren and she loses. A sane VP though, for 'balance'. Either way, they pivot left. Exactly wrong.
That's all predicated on them (Ds and Rs) not being triggered and dumping the dirt on each other. If that happens, we've got a half dozen parties fighting it out.
Re: (Score:2)
The allegation is that Russia colluded with Trump to influence the election.
Russia has tried to influence every American election since the end of WWI, and vice versa. You might have heard of: Voice of America, Pravda, Communist Party USA etc etc etc.
Ds like to charge 1, prove 2, then act smug. Like they've proven something in dispute.