Twitter Suspends Hundreds of Accounts Linked To Russian Operatives (usatoday.com) 235
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Twitter says it found some 200 accounts linked to the same Russian groups that bought $100,000 worth of ads on Facebook to sow political unrest and manipulate U.S. voters during the presidential election. The Twitter accounts, which were taken down over the last month, were linked to 470 accounts and pages that Facebook traced to the International Research Agency, a Russian troll farm. According to a blog post released by Twitter Thursday after briefing staffers on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the groups on Facebook had 22 Twitter accounts. Twitter found an additional 179 accounts connected to those 22. Twitter also shared information on Russian news outlet Russia Today, or RT, which has ties to the Kremlin, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
"Rise your hand" (Score:4, Interesting)
My favorite Russian Facebook accounts are the ones promoting the secession of Texas. Seriously, they're hysterically funny.
https://extranewsfeed.com/how-... [extranewsfeed.com]
They even paid for a pro-secession delegation from Texas to go to Russia, where they could learn about true political freedom.
So It's now illegal to deal with Russia? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's like McCarthy is back to switch the lights on and the cockroaches are running for cover. We've got to find and exterminate the Russians!
Are we SURE we want to do this folks? This kind of thing really doesn't work out so well... The Salem witch trials, McCarthy's search for communists, they all turned into blots on our history. If we are really out there shaming anybody and everybody who has any kind of real or imagined connection to the Russians, we will find that anybody and everybody will be subj
Re: (Score:2)
No it's illegal to influence elections
I've had trump loving friends reshare all kinds of weird Facebook pages that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere with stupid names like American Patriot Mom.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's illegal to influence elections
I've had trump loving friends reshare all kinds of weird Facebook pages that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere with stupid names like American Patriot Mom.
Depending on what you actually mean by "influencing elections" this is way too broad to be technically true. It is NOT illegal for them to do exercise influence (you couldn't enforce such a law anyway). Russia could start a conflict or propose a treaty that favored one candidate or another if they wish, the USA could make that illegal but there is no way to enforce that law, so it's worthless.
What IS illegal is for foreign entities to directly support a candidate, campaign or party or more to the point
Re: (Score:3)
The Americans only think it's bad if foreigners influence American elections. Those in charge especially feel it's perfectly okay to go around and influence elections in other countries. God forbid if someone does to them what they routinely do to others.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's illegal to influence elections
Does that include buying the support of super delegates? Or does the law only apply to normal people?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman. No, it is against the ToS to create and use fraudulent spam accounts. It may also be illegal to spend (or accept) money in particular ways related to politics, especially without disclosure or while intentionally attempting to obscure or mis-attribute the source. For example, I believe being paid to shill (which typically involves some deceptive aka fraudulent actions) in US national politics by a foreign government has been illegal for quite some time, and twitter has an obligation to do
Re: (Score:2)
What crazy people moderated this post +5 interesting?
The Internet Research Agency trades in weaponized speech.
This is a new road, on a new technology, for a new era.
New. And bad.
ET is not going to send a spaceship to demolish our planet. They are merely going to transmit a Breitbart 3K feed (this particular alien 'K' has four zeros) and we're going to do it ourselves.
We won't all fall for it, but the signal will be extremely powerful, and any boy scout with half a dish will be able to pick it up, to try o
Re: (Score:2)
The technology used might be new, but the technique is not. It's called propaganda and it's been used since the dawn of time.
The defense for propaganda is not to suppress it (because you really can't), but to educate the people targeted by it in the truth so they recognize propaganda when they see it. The problem we face is that we've been fighting propaganda with propaganda of our own and now the masses don't understand what the truth is. It's so bad that the media in our country, the very institution
Re: (Score:1)
Cuba? What about U.S. bases around the globe, some across the border from Russia. And while at it - what about 2 million people killed by americans in Vietnam. Were they threatening you in any manner so you had to run full Hitler genocide on them?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.. Really? The USA is a bad actor? I think history has another view of this.
Think about it. What *could* the USA do if it wanted too? We spend more money on our military than more than half the world does. We can literally project military power *anyplace* we choose for any reason we want. Now tell me again how the USA is a bad actor in the world...
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we've always done the right thing by everyone, we haven't, or that we've not inserted ourselves into local an
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The DNC literally rigged a national primary election to get the result they wanted.
1. It's their party. A political party is not part of the government, but is rather a private institution. They can run any candidate they like.
2. I love how you guys keep saying that it was perfectly acceptable for *Trump* to subvert the *GOP* nomination process beyond any shred of creditability while at the same time lambasting the Dems for failing to select a candidate who plainly did not and never was going to have enough votes to secure the nomination, much less the election.
As for the ads, they were t
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the GOP rigged their primary*. They did do a nice job of bending over for Trump, though, and didn't even demand any lube.
*And even if they had, it's their primary and they can run it however they choose to.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the GOP rigged their primary*. They did do a nice job of bending over for Trump, though, and didn't even demand any lube.
So basically, you're saying you didn't say shit. Only some profanities. The RNC primary bent over for Trump? Mmookay.
Re: (Score:2)
...a gay man and a woman...
You mean, like Ernst Röhm [wikipedia.org] and Leni Riefenstahl [wikipedia.org]?
It sounds bad because it's Russia (Score:5, Interesting)
Formerly, winning the hearts and minds of the populace at election time was the prerogative of the wealthy and influential, as powerful media barons and political machines dominated the landscape.
What we could be witnessing is the democratization of propaganda.
Re:It sounds bad because it's Russia (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we really want our democracies decided by memes and whoever trolls the hardest?
It's nothing new of course, politics has always been dominated by ignorance, prejudice and bullshit. It's just so much more efficient now.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we really want our democracies decided by memes and whoever trolls the hardest?
It's nothing new of course, politics has always been dominated by ignorance, prejudice and bullshit. It's just so much more efficient now.
Well, we want our democracies, so we have to give a little bit in the manner they are are administered.
If you let everyone vote as an equal participant (and that's pretty much the only way to go) you stipulate that a portion of the votes will be significantly influenced by the loudest, most oft-repeated, campaign message.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a few critical thinking and rhetoric classes at school would make a huge difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we really want our democracies decided by memes and whoever trolls the hardest?.
That's up to the voters. The real story in all of this is that so many people get their "news" from facebook ads.
Re: (Score:3)
the democratization of propaganda
I think you made a brilliant observation. These days, the information flows on the internet through a million streams in blogs, microblogs, social networks, and also lots of news sites you could consider "non-mainstream". No longer the likes of the NYT, Washington Post, and the cable news channels serve as the gatekeepers to the news or information. As a result, the mainstream media loves spinning the stories because "fake news". They're like "beware of getting any news or i
Re: (Score:2)
After the American media helped to drum up preparation for the war in Iraq, completely spun up and twisted upside down most issues related to say war in Syria, and took decisively the side of the Democratic presidential candidate last year, I sure can certainly trust our mainstream media a whole lot these days.
I think in the not to distant past, the fourth estate could get away with influence-peddling without too much effort. When the wealthy & powerful began consolidating marginally profitable news outlets, it should've been clear to even the casual observer there was possibly some ulterior benefit.
Has the 4th estate lost power to the 5th estate [stackexchange.com] because of their complacency? Traditionally successful periodicals seemed slow on the uptake; "This internet thing will never catch on."
They certainly didn't diver
Re: (Score:2)
You say this as if it was a good thing.
Propaganda is disinformation, regardless of who does it. It is inherently evil.
I'm making observations, not value judgments, but for the sake of argument let's say your designation of inherently evil is an accurate one. It just indicates that the process may exclude those who can't stand the stink of it, not that its implementation isn't an effective way to influence the outcome of elections.
You know what saves democracy, with all its blemishes? Just enough people eventually do right (voters & candidates) despite their baser nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the democratization of propaganda, just want we need. Can't believe anything because it's all a lie. Add ready sources of unbelievably stupid things being done in plain view & nothings too crazy to believe either. Not a country for old men....
Perhaps it just comes down to whether we're better off being guided by a few powerful elite influences, or by the multitude of opinions available by virtue of your friendly neighborhood spiderne..., er, internet.
Caveat: It's now super-easy to scroll down a search engine's information return interface to find a viewpoint that agrees with your settled belief set.
I'm no fan of many thing (Score:2)
I am interested to see how this pans out.
Mindless Citizens (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, ya... this was written in 1995 - 32 years ago:
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
---Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Re: (Score:2)
Operatives? (Score:2)
Witless Americans (Score:1)
So weak and witless are the Americans that you can get them to change their minds, get them to do your bidding, and get them to completely f*ck up their country and freedoms. All it takes is a few well-placed advertisements and tweets.
Imitation, something, greatest, something (Score:2)
Is that a Coke in your hand?
Now if they could only... (Score:5, Interesting)
...do that to all the ISIS ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Ivan?! I barely know him!
Profound Hypocrisy (Score:1)
I guess that's not news, though.
200 Accounts wow some actual numbers (Score:2)
and 50 thousand dollars just wow.
Number of active Twitter accounts 328 million
https://www.statista.com/st [statista.com]...
Number of tweets per day 500 million. 7700 per second so far today.
http://www.internetlivestat...... [www.internetlivestat...]
1 billion in digital political advertising in 2016
https://www.forbes.com/site [forbes.com]...
Twitter was deliberately not carrying advertising supporting Trump
https://www.recode.net/2016 [recode.net]...
I recall other incidents but ehh
Re: (Score:2)
Links were truncated. Sorry to hear about your autism.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is your friend, if you think the numbers are wrong.
The missed one... (Score:1)
They missed one... [twitter.com]
Sorry but if you are defending Russian Inteligence (Score:3)
So two hundred twitter accounts.. (Score:2)
So two hundred twitter and facebook accounts swayed the USA presidential election by spending 100,000USD on political ads. This is why Hillary Clinton lost, and not because she forgot to fight in the battleground states or because her discourse did not address the concerns of the worker class Americans. Mmokay.
Technical details please (Score:3)
Could Facebook visibly flag posts coming from a VPN or tor exit node or known troll farm?
Re: (Score:2)
They forgot one (Score:3)
Meanwhile.. (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald posted an article which explains why BeauHD falls in the category of useful idiots.
https://theintercept.com/2017/... [theintercept.com]
Re:As opposed to others who do it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm rather curious about this as well. I haven't been following this thing very closely, so in short: What did they do that was illegal or against the ToS? Am I, as a Danish citizen living in Germany, gonna get banned from Twitter if I post, with no context, that I think you should vote against Trump in 2020?
Re: (Score:1)
"Post, with no context" is not the same as "purchasing an ad from a US media company".
Re:As opposed to others who do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. Am I prohibited from purchasing ads from US media companies? If so, why?
Re:As opposed to others who do it? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, if they are meant to influence an election.
Don't ask me. Ask Congress (who passed the law) and Richard Nixon (who signed the law) and the Supreme Court (who upheld the law's provisions regarding foreign influence in elections).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, if they are meant to influence an election
Not as simple an answer as that. Under 52 US Code 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals [cornell.edu] the law states:
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local electi
Re: As opposed to others who do it? (Score:2)
Re:As opposed to others who do it? (Score:4, Informative)
If you are a foreign national [fec.gov] you cannot legally contribute to a candidate for federal office.
Contribute != opinion and/or ads (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be unwelcome involvement but then so was Obama's intervention in the Brexit referendum (which backfired spectacularly, unfortunately) so you can hardly blame other countries for the same behaviour as your former president.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't rely on your gut when it comes to dealing with the FEC. Unless your gut has passed the bar exam.
Did Facebook ads traced to a Russian company violate us election law [washingtonpost.com]
Betteridge's Law of Headlines aside, there may well be an indictable offense here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As opposed to others who do it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of them misrepresented their identity in order to deceive.
For excite, "AntiFa Boston" accidentally posted location data on a tweet recently (Moscow, Russia). The account is a troll stoking up division by pretending to be someone they are not, which is against the ToS.
Re: (Score:2)
Great example of the kind of gaslighting I was taking about the other day.
Of course if it was a parody/troll their reaction, deleting the tweet and then their account, seems a little bit odd.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So if I post under a fake Twitter account that you're a raging pedophile and catfucker, calling you out by name and warning your neighbors to keep their kids and cats away from you, that's like totally just parody, right?
I've never people more dedicated to trying to avoid the obvious; that they were duped by a dedicated and elaborate propaganda campaign by Russia to assist Donald Trump in getting elected than the alt-right.
Re: (Score:2)
"Parody" is the default excuse for any and all bad behaviour now. Marching down the street with a swastika flag is just "parodying" Nazis and laughing at people who are upset over "just a symbol". Stealing cars is just a parody of stupid criminals, Trump is just a parody of the US president...
And if you question it, then you are the delusional idiot who can't take a joke, even though there is no joke and they are totally sincere.
Re:As opposed to others who do it? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm rather curious about this as well. I haven't been following this thing very closely, so in short: What did they do that was illegal
If they paid money for ads in support of or against a particular political candidate, they were in violation of Title 52 United States Code Sec. 30121 [cornell.edu]. The constitutionality of this statute was challenged on First Amendment grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in refusing to hear an appeal, let stand a ruling [scotusblog.com] by a federal court of appeals that found the statute to be enforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's been illegal for almost half a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's been illegal for almost half a century.
How so?
First, you cannot stop them. Our laws don't apply on foreign soil. What the Russians do from over there is not going to stop if we make it illegal.
Second, I believe that you are talking about foreign participation in our elections. Where candidates and campaigns may not knowingly ask for or accept *resources* (money, services) from foreign sources, that's about as far as the law actually goes.
The big problem for your "It's been illegal" is that you cannot curb free speech within the country, and
Re: (Score:2)
We have at least two congressional investigations and an independent prosecutor who are looking into that "knowingly ask for" part, as we speak.
Stay tuned.
Re: (Score:2)
We have at least two congressional investigations and an independent prosecutor who are looking into that "knowingly ask for" part, as we speak.
Stay tuned.
Knowingly ask for or receive MONEY or something having value (such as phone services or rent free office space) is what the FEC rules don't allow. Pretty much if money (or something with monitory value) wasn't asked for or received from the Russians by the Trump Campaign, there is nothing that violates the law. So far, I've not seen any hard evidence of money being asked for or received, but we certainly don't have all the facts.
Of course Mueller may have a different perspective after fully investigating
Re: (Score:2)
Knowingly ask for or receive MONEY or something having value (such as phone services or rent free office space) is what the FEC rules don't allow. Pretty much if money (or something with monitory value) wasn't asked for or received from the Russians by the Trump Campaign, there is nothing that violates the law.
That's absolutely wrong. Title 52 U.S.C. 30121 (a)(1)(C) says "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." It doesn't matter if Trump's campaign was involved or not. If the Russians bought ads that mention the names of either or both candidates for the purposes of supporting one of the candidates then they have broken the law.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Russians bought ads that mention the names of either or both candidates for the purposes of supporting one of the candidates then they have broken the law.
Oh my God, Russians living in Russia have broken US laws. Behead them. Oh, wait, they are Russians living in Russia. Doesn't matter, let's make sure US law is applied to everyone on the planet, it is, after all, our Manifest Destiny. To control the planet. Isn't it?
On the other hand, Facebook knowingly accepted the money for those ads, but they seem to still have their heads. Does taking the money for an illegal act and then giving the congress copies of the illegal ads let them off the hook?
And then, wh
Re: (Score:3)
Oh my God, Russians living in Russia have broken US laws. Behead them. Oh, wait, they are Russians living in Russia.
You don't think the U.S. should investigate crimes against the U.S. just because they were committed abroad? It doesn't mean they'll ask for extradition or even lay charges, but if U.S. laws are broken, the justice department has an obligation to investigate. That's their job.
And then, what do we do with all the foreign press that carried articles and other material either beneficial or detrimental to specific candidates? Do we behead the newspaper editors and publishers for violating US law?
Don't know why you keep going on about beheading. The penalty is a fine. And there is an exception in this law for journalism.
It doesn't matter if Trump's campaign was involved or not.
Of course it matters if the Trump campaign was involved or not. Here: "11 CFR 110.20(g) Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals...
Yes, of course. What I meant was it doesn't matter for the purposes of deciding Russian culpability. Of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but this is only illegal if the campaign ASKED for this ad campaign on Facebook. The campaign is NOT liable for activities of others unless they are directly requesting such actions.
So the fact that a Facebook campaign was purchased by some foreign entity is not prima facie proof of an illegal activity. You MUST also prove that the campaign asked for this to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
If Russians want you to vote for a certain candidate, why does this matter?
Because it's been illegal for almost half a century.
Uhhh, no, it has never been illegal for any Russian to want me to vote for a certain candidate, any more than it has been illegal for any German or Brit or Canadian or South African or ...
It may have been illegal for that Russian to donate to specific candidates, or to buy advertising for specific candidates, but that's a lot more than just him wanting me to vote a certain way. And it is still a more than him tweeting his electoral preferences.
The twitter accounts that were deleted weren't buying twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said it was illegal for them to "want" you to vote for Donald Trump.
The illegal part comes if they actively get involved with the US election (usually via money). That's what seems to have happened here.
Yes, that's why they're falling all over themselves cooperating with law enforcement and congressional committees.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said it was illegal for them to "want" you to vote for Donald Trump.
Reread what you replied to, including the quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, the "want" part is not illegal. The purchasing of campaign ads and providing material support to the Trump campaign is illegal. That was the "this" in his question, "why does this matter?"
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, the "want" part is not illegal. The purchasing of campaign ads and providing material support to the Trump campaign is illegal.
That's what I said.
That was the "this" in his question, "why does this matter?"
It is pretty clear that the antecedent was intended to be "Russians want you to vote for a certain candidate", because that is the only thing that appears in the quote, both when you quoted it and when I did. I cannot assume mysterious invisible antecedents apply when there is a perfectly good one right there in the first clause of the sentence.
And when you argue with me about what I said and then claim that's what you said originally, you only highlight the problem. Why are you arguing
Re: (Score:2)
That's why God invented threaded conversations. So you could follow along with the conversation and keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why God invented threaded conversations.
And God invented "quoting" so you could quote the things that you are replying to, so that context would not be lost when parent articles are not easily tracked. Being explicit in what you are replying to is a skill, I know. Slashdot does very poorly at showing parents that are below threshold, and that should be considered, too. Sometimes parents are never shown, and are almost never shown in proper relationship when they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Real men set their threshold at -1.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The provision regarding foreign interference in elections was upheld by SCOTUS in 2012. See Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission.
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytime... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I checked, a tweet costs exactly $0, and as such cannot be considered a donation to any campaign.
Should we also try to claim that it is illegal for any foreign press to publish any information that is detrimental (or supportive) of any US political candidate? I
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the article, these twitter accounts are connected to the accounts that bought facebook advertising (assumedly for more than $0). Since the Twitter TOS say
Re: (Score:2)
If Russians can't donate directly, and they want to, they WILL find a work around...
If nothing else, they'll simply send Buddhist monks [nytimes.com] to Washington and throw an "outreach event".
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1494/ [xkcd.com]
Protip: Laws tend to target behavior but not exact actions; we employ judges and concepts like animus nocendi to decide if actions are criminal or innocent. Otherwise, just as you say, people would find 'workarounds' for every law and spend their days creatively robbing and killing each other.
Re: (Score:2)
... people would find 'workarounds' for every law and spend their days creatively robbing and killing each other.
They do a pretty good job of that already.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Saudies and the Clinton Foundation?
Re: (Score:2)
Here [cornell.edu]. Hint: scroll down to section c.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry; that should be section e.
Re: (Score:2)
That level of concern for the rule of law officially qualifies you to be a Republican congressman.
Re: (Score:2)
It matters because Hillary lost.
If Hillary had won, nobody would care. Anyone crying about the Russians buying pro-Hillary, left leaning ads (which they did) wouldn't be given one second of airtime or one byte of blog space.
Re: (Score:2)
It matters because Hillary lost.
If Hillary had won, nobody would care. Anyone crying about the Russians buying pro-Hillary, left leaning ads (which they did) wouldn't be given one second of airtime or one byte of blog space.
Citation needed from a reputable source, not some neo-nazi piece of shit that you've shoved your head up their ass. If there was even a slight hint of this with ANY credible evidence.... hell, even a remote sidewhisper from conspiracy theory dipshits on the right... it'd be all over fauxnews 24/7; BUT IT'S NOT.
So, lets be real clear here.... YOU find it perfectly fine for RUSSIA to UNDERMINE the USA. YOU are a FUCKING TRAITOR.... on top of being a worthless fucking liar.
Re: As opposed to others who do it? (Score:2)
Broham - look out! There's a Nazi hiding under your bed!!
Re: (Score:2)
I find it perfectly fine for Russia, or anyone, to tell the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating government oppressing a political group for a speculative reason (mind you, literally like the NAZI's did in WWII. The first group of people Hitler had shipped to camps were the Socialists and Unionists), and the investigation of ACTUAL CRIMES committed by a non-friendly state sponsor.
I get it, you're just too fucking stupid to see the difference.
Russian apologists are traitors. You are assisting an outside state entity harming the U
Re: (Score:2)
GTFO with your affiliate link spam.
How about Obama? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
The Russians did nothing different from what Obama did with getting involved in the Brexit referendum.
So you're accusing Obama of spending money (presumably in the UK) to influence the Brexit referendum? Because that's what we're talking about. Not just giving an opinion, but spending money to influence opinion.
Don't you think it is dangerous for US democracy when foreign powers buy influence in it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about Obama? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Russians did nothing different from what Obama did with getting involved in the Brexit referendum.
ORLY?
So Obama secretively bought a bunch of ads to try to influence the referendum?
Brexiteers made direct claims about the US, and the US via Obama responded directly through public channels. That is more or less exactly not what happened with Russia in the presidetial election.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Obama, you are right that this is how his involvement started but he followed up that initial comment with a day of campaigning in the UK which really raised some eyebrows on this side o
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
American propaganda about Russian click bait, this from a click bait article. Everyone does it, it is really annoying and this click bait rubbish should be kerbed but the bullshit propaganda and the silly modding, is too much fun to just let go. They are convincing no one of nothing, only the idiots who already buy into it and accept it, one great big ole circle jerk. Hey propagandist idiot, you know what the number one biggest indicater of a government propagandist is, FIRST POST MORON, yeah your are sitt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, for a person who pretty much boycotts both services and so honesty does not know, are these services barring the viewing of the content posted by these accounts?
Personally I think once something like this is found out, the services should keep most of the content up, mark the content as fraudulent with big red overlay images, put litte red warnings on the avatar of every comment ever posted by them on a page, and undelete any posts they still have that the account posted and then deleted. It's in the p
Re: (Score:2)
Qatar? Qatar? I've seen a lot of face-palm level deflection on this issue already, but this is a new one. Qatar! Give me a few minutes to get some popcorn, but then please explain what Qatar has to do with the price of butter in Paris, let alone fact that the US democratically elected a horror clown as president.
...
Ok, I'm ready. So you're saying Qatar funded some propagandists? Details please? And who are these Dem support[er]s wanting a worse relationship with Russia? Why? Why does this concern Qatar? Ple