NEW YORK — A new report suggests a “sophisticated” Russian propaganda campaign helped flood social media with fake news stories leading up to the presidential election.The Washington Post, citing a yet-to-be published report from independent researchers, said the goal was to punish Hillary Clinton, help Donald Trump, and undermine faith in American democracy.The report comes from a nonpartisan group of researchers called PropOrNot. The group describes itself as “concerned American citizens” with expertise in computer science, national security and public policy. The researchers say they traced the origins of posts and mapped the connections among accounts that delivered similar messages.The findings show just how effective the bogus reports and propaganda were, according to the report. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed 213 million times.While it’s not clear whether fake news and propaganda helped sway the election in Trump’s favor, millions of Americans get their news from what’s shared on Facebook and other social media. In recent months, fake and misleading stories have proliferated, even as Facebook has insisted that they make up a tiny fraction of the overall stuff users share on the site.Both Facebook and Google have said they are taking steps to stop the spread of misinformation on their sites, including by turning off access to advertising.PropOrNot’s report, provided to The Post in advance of its public release, identified more than 200 websites as “peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”PropOrNot did immediately not respond to a message asking for the report on Friday afternoon.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections.
“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” the statement read.
Quote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."Everything I dont agree with is fake news."
PBS.
Who exactly is behind PropOrNot, where it gets its funding and whether or not it is tied to any governments is a complete mystery.
Timberg’s piece on the supposed ubiquity of Russian propaganda is misleading in several other ways. The other primary “expert” upon which the article relies is Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a pro-Western think tank whose board of advisors includes neoconservative figures like infamous orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis and pro-imperialist Robert D. Kaplan, the latter of whom served on the U.S. government’s Defense Policy Board.What the Post does not mention in its report is that Watts, one of the specialists it relies on for its claims, previously worked as an FBI special agent on a Joint Terrorism Task Force and as the executive officer of the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. As Fortune’s Ingram wrote of the group, it is “a conservative think tank funded and staffed by proponents of the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.”
Quote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.
And undermine faith in American democracy.
Quote from: Alpha on November 27, 2016, 02:55:58 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."Everything I dont agree with is fake news."Do you enjoy sharing false information about things you know nothing about?
Quote from: Icy on November 27, 2016, 08:39:48 AMQuote from: Alpha on November 27, 2016, 02:55:58 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."Everything I dont agree with is fake news."Do you enjoy sharing false information about things you know nothing about?What are you saying I know nothing about?
"Everything I dont agree with is fake news."
According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Mrs. Robinson earned the lifetime pension for “services rendered as full-time/in-home caregiver” for granddaughters Malia, 18, and Sasha, 15, during President Obama’s two terms in office.In January of 2009, it was reported that Mrs. Robinson was living in the White House full-time to tend to her granddaughters. She was the first live-in grandmother at the White House since Elivera M. Doud, the mother of Mamie Eisenhower, during the Eisenhower Administration.Critics say Mrs. Robinson should not profit from something as simple as taking care of family. Sally Kellner, volunteer/activist for the National Taxpayers Union, says this is a prime example of needless spending. “I think it’s ridiculous that taxpayers must pay this woman a lifetime salary for something everyday Americans do for free. We take care of our families because we love them, not for profit.”
The Boston Tribune is a fake new site that masquerades as the online arm of a legitimate big-city newspaper in order to lure readers with fabricated clickbait stories.The Boston Tribune article provided links to the general landing pages of the National Taxpayers Union, FOIA.gov, and the Civil Service Retirement System, both those links did not point to any relevant information.The Former Presidents Act of 1958 provides lifetime benefits for presidents after they leave office. This law also provides some benefits for former first ladies (such as Secret Service protection), but not lifetime pensions for them (or their parents).As the First Lady does not receive a salary or a pension, it is reasonable to assume that the unofficial position of "first grandma" is also unpaid and is similarly ineligible for a government pension.The Boston Tribune is an offshoot of the fake Associated Media Coverage web site, which has previously published false stories claiming that Florida store owners killed 31 looters after Hurricane Matthew, that the practice of "open carry" was being banned in the United States," and that convicted murderer Jodi Arias had been released from prison.
Quote from: Alpha on November 27, 2016, 11:56:16 AMQuote from: Icy on November 27, 2016, 08:39:48 AMQuote from: Alpha on November 27, 2016, 02:55:58 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."Everything I dont agree with is fake news."Do you enjoy sharing false information about things you know nothing about?What are you saying I know nothing about?Your statement:Quote"Everything I dont agree with is fake news."Disagreement with a media source or story doesn't make it fake news, and that's not what President Obama, social media outlets and professional media organizations have derided over the past month.Stories like This, from the Boston Tribune are.QuoteAccording to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Mrs. Robinson earned the lifetime pension for “services rendered as full-time/in-home caregiver” for granddaughters Malia, 18, and Sasha, 15, during President Obama’s two terms in office.In January of 2009, it was reported that Mrs. Robinson was living in the White House full-time to tend to her granddaughters. She was the first live-in grandmother at the White House since Elivera M. Doud, the mother of Mamie Eisenhower, during the Eisenhower Administration.Critics say Mrs. Robinson should not profit from something as simple as taking care of family. Sally Kellner, volunteer/activist for the National Taxpayers Union, says this is a prime example of needless spending. “I think it’s ridiculous that taxpayers must pay this woman a lifetime salary for something everyday Americans do for free. We take care of our families because we love them, not for profit.”A.) The Boston Tribune is a fictitious new sourceB.) Although the National Taxpayers Union is an actual organization, citing a "Volunteer/activist" for such an organization - especially one dealing with FOIA's, government funding, etc - is your first clue that it's not an actual storyC.) If your uncle on Facebook is sharing stories from "TruthfulUSAGovenrment.net", you can assume it's not true.For further reading:Quote The Boston Tribune is a fake new site that masquerades as the online arm of a legitimate big-city newspaper in order to lure readers with fabricated clickbait stories.The Boston Tribune article provided links to the general landing pages of the National Taxpayers Union, FOIA.gov, and the Civil Service Retirement System, both those links did not point to any relevant information.The Former Presidents Act of 1958 provides lifetime benefits for presidents after they leave office. This law also provides some benefits for former first ladies (such as Secret Service protection), but not lifetime pensions for them (or their parents).As the First Lady does not receive a salary or a pension, it is reasonable to assume that the unofficial position of "first grandma" is also unpaid and is similarly ineligible for a government pension.The Boston Tribune is an offshoot of the fake Associated Media Coverage web site, which has previously published false stories claiming that Florida store owners killed 31 looters after Hurricane Matthew, that the practice of "open carry" was being banned in the United States," and that convicted murderer Jodi Arias had been released from prison.
Quote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:19:34 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.
Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 09:41:32 AMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:19:34 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.
Quote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 01:30:42 PMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 09:41:32 AMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:19:34 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway.
Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 03:04:48 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 01:30:42 PMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 09:41:32 AMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:19:34 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, those were just the possible arguments that i'd come up with. Since this is the second time i've confused someone I'll just quickly explain: Being able to say "this piece of evidence logically leads to this conclusion, but replacing it with this other piece leads to this other conclusion" is the crux of mathematics, so if I ever start saying "if you accept that this happened, then this is the kind of argument you're also making", I'm not actually strawmaning you, just laying out the chain of logic that I see.
Quote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:27:40 PMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 03:04:48 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 01:30:42 PMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 09:41:32 AMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:19:34 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, those were just the possible arguments that i'd come up with. Since this is the second time i've confused someone I'll just quickly explain: Being able to say "this piece of evidence logically leads to this conclusion, but replacing it with this other piece leads to this other conclusion" is the crux of mathematics, so if I ever start saying "if you accept that this happened, then this is the kind of argument you're also making", I'm not actually strawmaning you, just laying out the chain of logic that I see.What you're explaining sounds exactly like strawmanning.If you had read my first post in this thread, you wouldn't have made those assumptions to begin with. We're mostly in agreement here.
Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 03:53:24 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:27:40 PMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 03:04:48 PMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 01:30:42 PMQuote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on November 27, 2016, 09:41:32 AMQuote from: Azendac on November 27, 2016, 03:19:34 AMQuote from: LC on November 27, 2016, 01:52:53 AMYou don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that Russia had a hand in spreading fake news in an attempt to undermine American elections."It's okay to be a conspiracy theorist if it means stopping Trump"Until they release their report, and until we can verify that they're not another Soros funded smear group, then there is literally no evidence of Russian tampering, none whatsoever.I don't know if I would go that far. There's none publicly available, so we should remain highly skeptical.Sure, from a purely evidence based argument, you can't make one without leaking classified information. And from a speculative argument, you have to add in a lot of "maybe"'s to your statements, as in:"Some government agency might have incriminating evidence that maybe shows that Russia did something"But at that point you're not saying anything of value beyond speculation, and you're certainly not proving that Russia rigged the election for Trump.Calm down with the strawmen, jesus. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I think we're mostly in agreement here anyway. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, those were just the possible arguments that i'd come up with. Since this is the second time i've confused someone I'll just quickly explain: Being able to say "this piece of evidence logically leads to this conclusion, but replacing it with this other piece leads to this other conclusion" is the crux of mathematics, so if I ever start saying "if you accept that this happened, then this is the kind of argument you're also making", I'm not actually strawmaning you, just laying out the chain of logic that I see.What you're explaining sounds exactly like strawmanning.If you had read my first post in this thread, you wouldn't have made those assumptions to begin with. We're mostly in agreement here.Yeah my bad, I think and talk in hypotheticals quite often.
Quote from: Luciana on November 27, 2016, 01:00:29 PMYouTubeSpeaking of fake news, this is interesting. Not this biggest fan of him, but this interview is cool.Very very well said. Smart man.
YouTubeSpeaking of fake news, this is interesting. Not this biggest fan of him, but this interview is cool.
I guess the next thing is if you catch a flu or your car engine doesn't start it's Russia's fault.
Russian propaganda effort likely behind flood of fake pre-election news
