Steve Bannon Caught Running a Network of Misinformation Pages On Facebook (gizmodo.com) 184
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Steve Bannon has been outed for his involvement in running a network of misinformation pages on Facebook. Who could have possibly seen this coming. Facebook has talked a big game about monitoring election misinformation, and yet the independent activist network Avaaz said it had to alert the company to the pages before it removed them for coordinated inauthentic behavior. The group didn't need an army of 35,000 moderators to figure this out, and yet Facebook consistently fails to spot the troublemakers that journalists and researchers with less funding and staff seem to keep spotting. As they say: makes you think. Avaaz said that it alerted Facebook to the pages on Friday night. By that time, in aggregate, Avaaz says the top seven pages -- Brian Kolfage, Conservative Values, The Undefeated, We Build the Wall Inc, Citizens of the American Republic, American Joe, and Trump at War -- had collectively gained over 2.45 million followers. In some cases, Bannon and Brian Kolfage, co-conspirator in the "We Build the Wall, Inc." fundraiser/alleged scam, were co-admins.
Avaaz campaign director Fadi Quran told Gizmodo that its team identified the Bannon ring by running an "influencer analysis," keeping tabs on frequent guests on Bannon's podcasts and pages affiliated with Bannon's former "We Build the Wall" grift. Avaaz, which is comprised of 40 investigators and data analysts, has kept tabs on habitual misinformers and their coordinated sharing through custom software. They noticed that the Bannon-related pages tended to publish content at the same time and linked to the Populist Press, an even more right-wing Drudge Report copycat trafficking in disproven election fraud claims. The pages avoided warning labels by laundering links through the Populist Press domain rather post the original URLs for stories Facebook had already flagged as misinformation. Avaaz says they'd previously alerted Facebook to a network of 180 Bannon-connected pages and groups which have been sharing misinformation. "We're a small team run with small donations," Quran told Gizmodo. "If we can spot this stuff, a multi-billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees focused on the election and disinformation most certainly can. We are tired of doing their job for them."
Quran added that Avaaz has been alerting Facebook to its problems all year. "If 2016 was an accident," Quran added, "2020 has been negligence."
Avaaz campaign director Fadi Quran told Gizmodo that its team identified the Bannon ring by running an "influencer analysis," keeping tabs on frequent guests on Bannon's podcasts and pages affiliated with Bannon's former "We Build the Wall" grift. Avaaz, which is comprised of 40 investigators and data analysts, has kept tabs on habitual misinformers and their coordinated sharing through custom software. They noticed that the Bannon-related pages tended to publish content at the same time and linked to the Populist Press, an even more right-wing Drudge Report copycat trafficking in disproven election fraud claims. The pages avoided warning labels by laundering links through the Populist Press domain rather post the original URLs for stories Facebook had already flagged as misinformation. Avaaz says they'd previously alerted Facebook to a network of 180 Bannon-connected pages and groups which have been sharing misinformation. "We're a small team run with small donations," Quran told Gizmodo. "If we can spot this stuff, a multi-billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees focused on the election and disinformation most certainly can. We are tired of doing their job for them."
Quran added that Avaaz has been alerting Facebook to its problems all year. "If 2016 was an accident," Quran added, "2020 has been negligence."
Consider the Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot and the Gawker network complaining about misinformation campaigns is the most 2020 thing to behold.
Not a Bannon/Trump fan by any means... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. However being a cesspool of shit is not very conducive to keeping your customers ...err... products happy. Hell the reason I never use Facebook for anything more than messenger is precisely because the feed turned into a never ending torrent of bile over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
The $64,000 question is "Does it do any good?"
Groups of people with personal and views deemed offensive on a platform have proven time and again that they are willing to relocate to another social media site, perhaps less in the light than the Facebook, yet accessible all the same.
It may (or may not) ultimately benefit Facebook and the like to pejoratively dismiss unpopular viewpoints. I just dislike the trend toward removing opinions outside of a particular belief set. The better part of coming to a reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, what reasonable conclusion can I draw if I consider information from NASA and the Flat Earth Society?
Some information is just shit and does not deserve consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the majority view of your platform. Are there more insane nutjobs out there, or are there more normal people who'd rather not deal with insane nutjobs. The most popular platforms in the world seem to have universally agreed on the latter and I'm sure their users would shed no tears to see a minority of the user base piss off and take their verbal diarrhea to Voat or 4chan.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont agree with how they run Facebook but it is private property. I dont agree with censorship. So what if he had a bunch of pages. But Facebook neither has a duty to ensure it only has "accurate" information nor is it restricted from censorship. There is a need for a free speech platform, even for speech we disagree with. This is the proper response. People need to make alternative to Facebook, not take the bait and expose web platforms to huge liabilities. The law mainly just codifies what is common sen
Re: (Score:3)
So free speech is an absolute right, and it's OK to yell "fire" in a crowded place. Or so you claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers don't like being associated with the attacks on you democracies.
I'm sure Facebook would claim they care about their users too, but it's the advertising thing.
This. (Score:2)
You don't have to give them real info (Score:2)
And before you go off and say "The discourse on Facebook sucks!" maybe if they'd ban all the sock puppets that wouldn't so the case...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, or morally? (People tend to conflate the two.)
Bannon is a scumbag? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait wait, it turns out that Steve Bannon is a scumbag?
Damn, no one could have seen that coming.
Its all fun and games until Meal Team Six... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's both.
Re: (Score:2)
I know who Bannon is of course, but I don't know of Avaaz. One thing I know for sure though, is that nobody is independent and objective. All those fact checking websites have been debunked as politically one-sided.
When the political right decides to run a parallel universe where "alternative facts" are the norm then yes, seems like fact checking is a partisan thing now. You have the real facts and, well, the alternative facts.
Avaaz campaign director Fadi Quran told Gizmodo (Score:2)
Dear Lord, I wish I had mod points for this... (Score:2)
So true...
Avaaz only targets conservatives (Score:3)
Avaaz seems to only target their definition of "misinformation" from conservatives - I don't see any history of them investigating misinformation from liberals. Such a biased organization is clearly just part of the propaganda machine from the opposite political side and cannot be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe, that's because there is so much shit coming from the conservative corner? Naaah, can't be it, it must be liberal bias.
Look, a lot of conservative shibboleths are plain false: IQ is not an objective measurement of racial superiority, women are not just baby-bearing machines, black people do have equal rights, Earth's average surface temperature is rising, and Joe Biden won fair and square.
So stop whining.
Anybody remember "freedom of speech?" (Score:2)
Facebook is supposed to be a *platform* not a publisher. Facebook has no more businesses determining what you post, than your phone company would have in determining what you can say over the phone.
Facebook has a long, and shameful, history of censoring any opinions they don't happen to agree with. That is acting as a publisher, not a platform.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook does not present itself as a partisan op.
Re: (Score:2)
I was disagreeing with OPs assertion that Facebook "is supposed to be a platform." You can wish for it to be whatever you like, but it isn't "supposed" to be anything but what its owners want it to be.
There's a lot of terrible things that are legal, dude.
Agreed. Like running a network of misinformation pages on a social media network. But, like it or not, it's protected under the first amendment so no one is coming to take Bannon off to jail (for this, at least).
Re: (Score:2)
THIS JUST IN, walterbyrd ( 182728 ) FAILS TO UNDERSTAND SECTION 230 OF THE CDA.
STOP THE FUCKING PRESS.
Seriously, what a total noob you are. Do you know anything?
A Solution to Facebook Censoring (Score:2)
It centers around the idea that "Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom of reach". So, First amendment allows people to say almost anything, but the constitution was written at a time that for these words to reach a large audience the people you spoke to would have to retell your idea. That or you'd need to publish it in media.
Put simply, if you
Re:And yet Facebook STILL allows (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yes, there's nothing wrong with the first two, and in your last comment you're pretty much admitting you're treating any criticism of Israel as being anti-semitic.
Re: And yet Facebook STILL allows (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a problem with Anti-fascists, then the real problem is you! Remember WWII, when the Allied powers were Anti-fascists? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't criticize my group called anti-baby seal clubbing, because that would be supporting baby seal clubbing, even if we do, and constantly club baby seals.
Re: (Score:2)
I support the clubbing of baby seals.
Harp seals are plentiful. The decline of polar bear populations has caused their numbers to increase.
Meanwhile, many of their prey species are endangered. So the clubbing is helping to balance the ecology of the North Atlantic.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more humane ways to get rid of those seals, and probably more efficient as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not nearly as entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
I (heart) NY
I (club) SEALS
Re: (Score:2)
Remember WWII, when the Allied powers were Anti-fascists?
The Allies (specifically the USSR) murdered millions of people in death camps during the war. Millions more were deported and died of exposure, hunger, and neglect. Millions of women were raped by Allied troops, and not all were Germans who some people feel "deserved it". The Allies firebombed cities filled with civilians and refugees.
The enemy of a bad guy isn't always a good guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice straw man you're putting out there. The default position on the vast majority of people is Anti Fascist. They just don't like it.
However, there's a very tiny group that turn round and say "Well, we're MORE anti-fascist than YOU". And employ tactics that are pretty much indistinguishable (to most people who don't spend years debating on what is and isn't fascist behaviour and still drawing blanks) from fascist behaviour.
In general, most people are anti-racist, anti-fascist, and anti being d
Re: (Score:3)
many people are perfectly fine with fascist policies, but fascism is such an ugly word.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, America only declared war on Germany after the Germans declared war on America. America also insisted on not punishing any of the multinationals that supported Hitler's party, and they all (or at least the ones with offices in Germany) did support them as the Party was good for the economy.
You could say that is a defining characteristic of Fascism, the economy comes first.
Re: (Score:2)
They were not anti fascist, they were simply allied with the other side. That would be like saying that the Germans were anti british, or anti mushy peas and tea. The American government is filled with fasces symbols, they are fascist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also "anti-fascism" isn't much of an ideology if they don't make clear what "fascism" is to them. It's fine to draw clear lines in the sand and state that you oppose anything on the other side of it, but "anti-fasicsm" just sounds like they picked a more or less universally reviled ide
Show empathy to SORE LOSERS. (Score:5, Insightful)
If one thing's clear in the wake of President-elect Joe Biden's presumptive victory over President Donald Trump, it's that liberals like me need to reach out to people who spent the past four years dehumanizing us and show empathy.
Immediately.
I'm told this cannot wait and it's wholly incumbent upon us, the liberals, to spend time trying to better understand the millions of Americans who voted for Trump and who reacted to every tweet we ever posted with a photo of Trump and the words, "CRY HARDER LIB!!"
I feel bad that I have yet to begin my search for common ground with the people who chanted breathlessly for jailing Trump's political opponents, but I guess I was waiting for them to first accept the results of the presidential election. That was rude of me to think acknowledging reality should be a prerequisite for me to feel deeply concerned about the emotions of people who think Democrats rigged an election but forgot to rig it well enough to win back the U.S. Senate.
I apologize, and I hope that with time, the people who still believe former President Barack Obama is a Muslim will forgive me and let me into their lives so I can gain knowledge and understanding.
After all, I can count on no hands the zero times over the past four years Trump supporters reached out to me in an attempt to bridge the political divide between us. And thank goodness for that, as it might have torn them away from tweeting "HAH! TRIGGERED!" at liberals who were feeling truly hurt by or worried about the actions of the Trump administration.
What's important now is that I, a liberal, reach out to the person who emailed the day after the election to call me "a worthless pile of human garbage." I must recognize that that person is hurting. I must take the first step, and that person should certainly not need to engage in any self-reflection. It is my fault he called me human garbage. Hopefully time can heal that wound.
Some might argue it's impossible to find common ground with people willing to believe there was massive voter fraud when the only evidence presented is conspiratorial word salad served by Trump's bug-eyed attorney, Rudy Giuliani, outside a Philadelphia lawn care company next to a porn shop.
And some might cynically suggest it's hard to take people seriously when they insist the media can't call an election, since they raised no such objection when Trump won in 2016.
But I'm told it would be just like an evil liberal to think such things. Clearly I must do my part, surrender some of my firmly held beliefs and appeal to people who think I should leave the country because all my beliefs are un-American.
So please, to the people who, in the wake of Trump's 2016 victory, told me to "suck it" and offered a mug in which to place my "Liberal Tears," I want to comfort you in this difficult time. Perhaps there's a way I can modify my views on family separation to accommodate your hatred of immigrants? It seems abandoning my disgust that the Trump administration orphaned more than 500 children is the least I can do for people who believe I and other liberals are part of a network of satanic pedophiles.
Would it help if I hit myself in the face a few times? If that's what it takes to find a middle ground in which I feel pain and you feel none, I will certainly start the face-whacking immediately. It's only fair.
Your feelings are extremely important to me, person wearing a pro-Trump T-shirt that says "(EXPLETIVE) Your Feelings." It is up to me to understand you, and I will be happy to start on that as soon as you're done composing an email that calls me "the enemy of the people" and shouting "FAKE NEWS!" while trying to intimidate my colleagues.
Take your time. I'll wait. This is entirely my responsibility, and any suggestion that Biden winning by 5 million votes suggests otherwise is absurd.
I feel bad that I caused you to hate me. Totally my fault. And I don't want you to feel like you need to do a single thing to better understand me.
After the 20
Re:Show empathy to SORE LOSERS. (Score:5, Insightful)
- I’m not American, but as a world citizen I feel I have some skin in the game, in the shit show you call the US elections
- I am glad Biden won. And I hope Trump will concede sooner rather than later and fuck off to his golf course.
- I also have no doubt that none of the investigations into voter fraud will turn up any evidence of significant tampering
However, that position does not preclude me from holding the following opinions:
- I think that Hillary was about the crappiest candidate ever to be put forward for the presidency. In 2020 my vote would be a solid “Biden”, but in 2016 it would have been “Trump”. Trump turned out to be a disappointment, and while I am not too hot on Biden/Harris, I hope not to be disappointed this time round.
- I still think that Antifa are a dangerous bunch of idiots. I’m mostly going by what we see of them here in Europe, but from what I can see the US variant isn’t any different.
Is there something between Trump and Antifa? Yes, I am there, and I suspect most of us are. Also, pardon my French. But this whole with-us-or-against-us thing is starting to piss me off.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I'm super happy that the orange turd lost, and my primal instinct would like me to rub it into his strange cult's follower's faces - but apart from giving me some satisfaction, what would that achieve? More distance? An even bigger divide?
The weight of at least trying to reduce society's dysfunctional de-cohesion sadly does squarely lie on the shoulder of the cooler heads. And I'd like to conside
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the voting demographics the biggest issue by far that needs addressing, and the one which Trump really rode hard, is that white people, especially white men, are worried that their power is being diminished as other people rise up.
Many of them don't even think of it in those terms, it's more like "Mexicans are coming for your jobs and your women", or fear of socialism/communism that they think transfers wealth away from them, or worries about dark skinned criminals moving near to them. Trump
Nixon started the drug war (Score:5, Insightful)
Also go read the Wikipedia article on Newt Gingrich (who's still got a swank gig on Fox News).
Trump is actively trying to stage a coup and can't do it because he's too incompetent to pull it off. If you run at me with a potato peeler instead of a butcher's knife I don't laugh it off. I thank my lucky stars you're a moron while charging you with assault.
The only reason everybody reading this isn't going to lose pre-existing condition protections thanks to Trump on the way out and McConnell blocking attempts to restore them is the Supreme Court is a little annoyed that Congress didn't have the balls to overturn the ACA and set the Courts up to do it.
Oh, and let's not forget the economy does better when Democrats are in charge. Look it up.
In short, your side has been uniformly terrible for all Americans for well over 50 years (my political history knowledge only goes back so far). As an American you suffer too, just less so. It's incredibly frustrating to point this out and and time again and somehow you never learn your lesson.
There will be a smooth transition... (Score:3)
Mike Pompeo
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck are you talking about. I don't recall anybody claiming Bush was the antichrist or suggesting people who voted for him deserves the death penalty. There were articles in the summer of '01 suggesting he'd be a one term president because the right was very unhappy with his social leanings, so maybe the death threats came from the far right. Certainly by the fall of '01 the country was pretty well rallied around him, left and right (at least statistically, his popularity panned after 8 years on
Re: Show empathy to SORE LOSERS. (Score:2)
Nutter might be the right term, but rsilvergun definitely has used that exact phrase on here many times. He isnt the only one. /. Is the closest to social media as I get. I have a complete disdain for Twitter, Facebook, myspace, instagram, etc. I see a lot of, as you put it, nutters on here, calling trump the worst human in existence. Im not a trump supporter. I voted for Gary Johnson. Maybe you are young, and dont remember the antibush tripe. Just look at rsilverguns defense of those saying anyone supporti
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure I'd compare random posters and what they say on slashdot vs what the actual sitting President himself has said, or his senior aides. There's a bit of an asymmetry there.
I expect people on Slashdot to say stupid shit, they've been doing it for decades I see no reason to equate 1/3rd of the US populous with what some twit here says.
As far as remembering Bush, not an issue, I clearly remember Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton too plus their VPs and the major players in the Senate and h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way that you're trying to gaslight.
You know that Minneapolis police building (Score:5, Informative)
At worst Antifa throws punches and milk shakes. Your side lights buildings on fire and shows up in black districts in full cammo open carrying assault rifles.
Can you stop with the Karl Rove shit? It's 2020. Just accusing the other side of acting like you do doesn't work anymore. We've all got the internet and YouTube and shit. We know.
Re: (Score:2)
was burned down by right wing extremists, right?
Are you responding to me? If so what specifically about my statement are you refuting? Do you disagree Antifa uses violence to achieve political ends? Do you disagree this is the definition of terrorism? What specifically is the problem?
At worst Antifa throws punches and milk shakes.
Your side lights buildings on fire and shows up in black districts in full cammo open carrying assault rifles.
What is this some kind of contest? Hey at least these people are not doing x, y and z.. as if that's supposed to be some kind of excuse or justification for what they ARE doing? Hey it's just an M-80 those guys over there are throwing hand grenades!
Personally I don't h
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read my post? (Score:3)
Meanwhile the right wing is lighting buildings on fire and organizing violent, racist militias of the kind that used to lynch black folks with regularity.
My side are harmless punks,
Re: (Score:2)
there are no left wing extremists, violent or otherwise.
Actually the sky is orange with green polka dots. As you say there is Youtube and shit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
. There's a couple punk kids throwing the occasional punch and/or milk shake.
Meanwhile the right wing is lighting buildings on fire and organizing violent, racist militias of the kind that used to lynch black folks with regularity.
My side are harmless punks, your side are well organized violent fascists. Is that really the sort of people you want in charge of the country? Because while my side looks down at Antifa and tells those dumb frat boys to sober up you side (and your political party) actively encourages the most violent impulses. That won't end well for me, or you.
Jesus whataboutismfuckingchrist. Do you ever read what you write before clicking submit? This isn't some kind of contest. You don't get nor deserve points for being less worse than the other guy. Someone else's less indefensible behavior in no way serves as a defense for your own indefensible behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus whataboutismfuckingchrist. Do you ever read what you write before clicking submit?
It's not whataboutism, dumbshit. We're comparing and contrasting two directly opposing groups. You're trying to characterize them as being the same, and there are substantial differences you're merely ignoring in order to support your point, which is bullshit. You fail at rhetoric, and it's boring and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not whataboutism, dumbshit.
Is so.
We're comparing and contrasting two directly opposing groups.
No "we" most certainly are not. I have not done so and challenge anyone to cite me doing what you are asserting. My remarks stand on their own regardless of whether anyone else elects to contrast Antifa with Hitler, UNICEF or the Easter bunny.
You're trying to characterize them as being the same, and there are substantial differences you're merely ignoring in order to support your point, which is bullshit.
Again I've done nothing of the sort and challenge anyone to cite me doing what you are asserting.
This is a common theme with you hearing what you want to hear rather than that which has actually been stated. The voices saying these things are your own. I was
Re: (Score:2)
there are no left wing extremists, violent or otherwise.
You have to be trolling. What about the people who shot up cars (with occupants) in Atlanta and Provo. The guys in Atlanta killed an 8-year-old girl. What is wrong with you? https://apnews.com/article/914... [apnews.com] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a... [cbsnews.com]
Antifa are are a bunch of punks (Score:3)
The violent ones on the right are actually dangerous. They organize into a command structure and have the backing of a major political party.
If you can't see the difference then you're blinded by hate and anger, and God help us all.
Re: (Score:2)
soccer hooligans without the soccer. Mostly harmless.
The violent ones on the right are actually dangerous. They organize into a command structure and have the backing of a major political party.
If you can't see the difference then you're blinded by hate and anger, and God help us all.
There is no contest here to see which whacknut is more dangerous than the other whacknut. Ones behavior is not excused because someone worse than them exists.
Indulging in moral relativism and whataboutism is indefensible and illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
Indulging in moral relativism and whataboutism is indefensible and illogical.
You're acting like all violence is equal in impact (it isn't) or in justification (it also isn't). Antifa are targeting people who are violent themselves. That sort of activity is generally recognized as an act of defense, except by those who would prefer to see victims suffer endlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
You're acting like all violence is equal in impact (it isn't) or in justification (it also isn't).
It begs credulity you would assert such a thing while responding to explicit indication of the contrary. This is what you replied to:
"There is no contest here to see which whacknut is more dangerous than the other whacknut. Ones behavior is not excused because someone worse than them exists."
Again this is not a fucking contest and I am in no way comparing one group to another.
Illegal violence is illegal violence regardless of who commits it. It is not necessary to evaluate the relative severity of violenc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And yet Facebook STILL allows (Score:3)
Wait, isnâ(TM)t that Facebook?
Re:You mean like (Score:5, Insightful)
How did that get spiked for a week
Just taking a guess, but maybe because Pfizer didn't announce anything [msn.com] until after the election. It's a bit difficult to report on something which hasn't been announced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pfizer picked its political favorite most likel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
self interest would dictate they stay the fuck out of political debate.
Are you kidding? Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in the USA. Self-interest dictates you embed yourself deeply in politics. Hell lobbying in the USA *BY BIG PHARMA ALONE* is a $300million / year industry.
Re: (Score:2)
A large company, Pfizer self interest would be to pick the candidate it wants to regulate the company.
Whether Pfizer held back the news PR or not is the question.
The news would have changed the vote counts one way or another so yes Pfizer played politics and holding the news back was a choice.
Remember both candidates met with the drug industry as part of the presidential transition team. Biden formed his team 6 months before the election. Trump already had his in place.
So why exactly would Trump need a transition team if he was re-elected to be President?
Re:You mean like (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not a "story". It is an intermediate scientific result. It gets released when it is ready. It could result in huge fines if published prematurely, even prison time for stock manipulation is possible.
Some insights into _actual_ reality required.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because Pfizer purposely wanted to stay out of politics. If they released the news a week before (if they had it a week before), Trump could politicize the vaccine to the point where even if it worked, people won't trust it thinking it was fast-tracked to the point where it was questi
Re: (Score:2)
You linked to a comment here that took some information from the article out of context. In the context of the actual story, it specifies that there were concerns that Pfizer's case set that they had planned on, the 32, would not have as rigorous statistical significance and would not stand up to scrutiny as well, which I would agree with given how strong the anti-vaxxers seem to be these days plus how strong their global competition appears to be. So, they wanted more - it's not like they get a bunch of sh
Re: (Score:2)
There is allegedly a laptop that might have incriminating evidence that Biden's son might have met with a Ukrainian man, in a story written by a New York Post reporter who wouldn't even put his name to it.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
ignore anything not on fox or cnn.
And OAN. And Parler
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> no one has been able to show any extreme anomaliies in any voting so I think you need a citation
this is literally what hundreds of lawsuits are about.
Anybody who thinks they know what evidence or lack thereof has been submitted to
Re: (Score:2)
... dammit mobile interface ....
to the courts is being delusional.
Nobody on either side would go to the Press with their strongest arguments - that would be absolutely terrible legal strategy.
"We don't know" is a humble and valid opinion. The deadline is effectively Dec. 8th. Jumping the gun always disqualifies the runner.
Maybe some people don't like this system. That's fine and valid, but also irrelevant to outcomes.
Watch for the Bush v. Gore equal-protection doctrine to drop a giant bomb on that system
Re: (Score:2)
this is literally what hundreds of lawsuits are about.
Lawsuits which so far present no evidence.
The existence of a lawsuit is only evidence of... existence of a lawsuit. Period, the end.
Re: (Score:2)
But.... these were caught and fixed... So, while there was a problem, it was identified and resolved.
Not sure what this proves other than the people responsible for monitoring the voting did their jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
There were poll watchers in the rooms from both parties in all cases. They are there to observe that ballots are processed properly, not to actually count them or verify signatures. So being 6 feet away vs 10 feet away is not a big deal. they just made it one for political purposes.
The vast majority of the complaints are from partisan observers who are part of the campaign (mostly Trump campaign). These are different people than the local official GOP observers who were also in the room. The various pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is evidence. Troves of it. The leftist media just lies about it.
For example, there are numerous sworn statements citing instances of voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
There is evidence. Troves of it.
Where?
For example, there are numerous sworn statements citing instances of voter fraud.
I heard all those affidavits were fraudulent.
Look, now I've presented as much evidence as the Trump camp!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine by running lots of unconnected (as far as the mark knows) pages by Bannon means that when the mark searches something Bannon says, they get positive reinforcement making them think Bannon is an authority.
He hit an unexpected homerun being tied to Trump early on. But Bannon is not a king maker or influencer per se. I had thought about him creating his own echo chamber however considering Bannon's usual charades that seems a little "4D chess" to me. Sure he could put time and treasure into building his own network thus gathering eyeballs and followers. But on Facebook's platform that won't translate into immediate $$$ and he strikes as more of a direct profit kind of guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If the land is dead for miles around, it is in fact reasonable to suspect the well is poisoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, is "Bannon" supposed to be a thought-terminating cliche?
If you were thinking, you'd see "Bannon" and subst "Bullshit" automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, is "Bannon" supposed to be a thought-terminating cliche? Where I hear the word and stop asking all questions? I want to know what information is alleged to be non-factual, and, beyond that, whether it was opinion claiming to be fact or merely opinion, and what makes it so notable that Facebook should censor it.
When someone has an established reputation for deceit, there comes a point where you just stop listening to him.
If Bannon changes his ways, then fine, reconsider. But he hasn't.