The Russian Propaganda Campaign

Low hanging fruit, obviously there was nothing but BBS and Compuserve in 85. Quoting trolls feeds them.

I figure a lot of people here wouldn't remember, so they might not realise that in terms of both the users and the experience it was markedly different to the internet.
The shift in propaganda methods has been technologically driven.
 
Humans are social animals programmed to follow the herd. In a related note, even things like leadership have a genetic component. So we're inclined to follow certain types of behaviors and respond more strongly to certain presentations of information.

I don't think it is a heard mentality that leads to 40 different journalists and politicians coming out and repeating the same phrases, and the same talking points, within 3 hours of each other on a Monday morning.
 
Holy Shit!

That's Trump's personal playbook as well(also many "journalists" on the American Far Right).

Via the Rand Corp:

We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda as “the firehose of falsehood” because of two of its distinctive features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions. In the words of one observer, “[N]ew Russian propaganda entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”2

Contemporary Russian propaganda has at least two other distinctive features. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency.

When someone speaks like this: “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

It's like a Rorschach test to many people. They'll hear what they want.

And God help anyone who tries to sift through it and explain point by point why it's nuts. By the time you reach the end, he'll have said 2000 more batshit crazy things.
 
Who says what Russia did was illegal?

People who know anything about the law. Just off the top of my head, they clearly committed unauthorized access, unlawful distribution, probably violated the CFAA, RICO, and probably something related to incitement as well.
 
When someone speaks like this: “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

It's like a Rorschach test to many people. They'll hear what they want.

And God help anyone who tries to sift through it and explain point by point why it's nuts. By the time you reach the end, he'll have said 2000 more batshit crazy things.
He's legitimately a walking talking "Firehose of Falsehood".
 
From the indictment:

Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts.
 
People who know anything about the law. Just off the top of my head, they clearly committed unauthorized access, unlawful distribution, probably violated the CFAA, RICO, and probably something related to incitement as well.

The evidence suggests the DNC deal was a leak not a hack. Also the DNC is a private organization. That seems like a civil court issue.

Proof of unlawful distribution?

Probably means Jack shit.

List the specific law the Russian government broke, and then provide the evidence.

This is why I won't get on board with this Russian witch hunt. You guys don't want to address the actual problem here, which is that advertising is psychological warfare, and should be banned from politics. Lobbying is rampant, and a threat to national security. Campaign finance is a threat to national security.

People seem to want to leave the house of cards standing, while trying to just pull the Russia card out.
 
The evidence suggests the DNC deal was a leak not a hack. Also the DNC is a private organization. That seems like a civil court issue.

Proof of unlawful distribution?

Probably means Jack shit.

List the specific law the Russian government broke, and then provide the evidence.

This is why I won't get on board with this Russian witch hunt. You guys don't want to address the actual problem here, which is that advertising is psychological warfare, and should be banned from politics. Lobbying is rampant, and a threat to national security. Campaign finance is a threat to national security.

People seem to want to leave the house of cards standing, while trying to just pull the Russia card out.
What evidence shows it was a leak?


Also, you're still off topic.
 
Here's a specific example of how they could manipulate people. From these indictments we know @10_GOP was a Russian controlled twitter account. Twitter banned them 5 months ago. This was The Donald's response when it was banned: http://archive.is/axNIg
Those comments though , Trumptards screaming censorship lol
 
The evidence suggests the DNC deal was a leak not a hack. Also the DNC is a private organization. That seems like a civil court issue.

Proof of unlawful distribution?

Probably means Jack shit.

List the specific law the Russian government broke, and then provide the evidence.

This is why I won't get on board with this Russian witch hunt. You guys don't want to address the actual problem here, which is that advertising is psychological warfare, and should be banned from politics. Lobbying is rampant, and a threat to national security. Campaign finance is a threat to national security.

People seem to want to leave the house of cards standing, while trying to just pull the Russia card out.

Nope, that's still a crime: not just tortious. Even if there was an inside mole, the law accommodates for that. As far as proof of distribution, how about this very conversation?

No, I'm not looking up federal statutes for you. You made the claim they didn't break a law and I provided the common law bases for the argument that they did. I also included two specific federal laws already.


Also, your "not getting on board" is hardly rational. It's weird and inconsistent, as proven by your wanting to deflect to....lobbying? Seriously?
 
I think, beyond the cultural problems in the country and besides the previously-unrealized extent of our government's reliance on norms, the interference has specifically highlighted how clunky and unwieldy our non-parliamentary government and two-party single member district plurality truly is. This type or even level of partisanship and gridlock was, to some extent that doesn't anticipate the blatant obstructionism and unprincipled gamesmanship of Gingrich and McConnell, always inevitable. Our system, from its preclusion of third parties to its reliance on outdated geographic tailoring, is simply not an optimal government.

However, due to the nature of the beast, it will never amend itself. So, to that I summarize our future as:

flat,800x800,075,f.jpg


quote-bourgeois-society-stands-at-the-crossroads-either-transition-to-socialism-or-regression-rosa-luxemburg-68-40-91.jpg

quote-we-still-have-a-choice-today-nonviolent-coexistence-or-violent-co-annihilation-this-martin-luther-king-100-35-86.jpg

I would disagree, but considering that labor is going to be the realm of machines in 50 or 100 years, what is the alternative from the right?

I am not asking Trotsky, as that would be unfair to him, I want to know if anyone has an answer here on the right. What is the point of a merit based economy if we are about to strip all merit from everything and turn it into menial "service?"

A kind of advanced democratic socialism and a more efficient quasi-socialist economy seems to be the most viable choice for a society that eliminates work as we know it.

That said, the democratic, and liberal baby must not be tossed out for an authoritarian impulse that too often comes from the left.
 
Those comments though , Trumptards screaming censorship lol
I wonder how many of the comments were Russian trolls pretending to be Americans crying about a Russian troll pretending to be American getting banned.
 


A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.
By Patrick Lawrence

AUGUST 9, 2017


https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
So, one group's assessment over all other available data?

Don't you feel like you're letting your beliefs lead you here, instead of the evidence?
 
Nope, that's still a crime: not just tortious. Even if there was an inside mole, the law accommodates for that. As far as proof of distribution, how about this very conversation?

No, I'm not looking up federal statutes for you. You made the claim they didn't break a law and I provided the common law bases for the argument that they did. I also included two specific federal laws already.


Also, your "not getting on board" is hardly rational. It's weird and inconsistent, as proven by your wanting to deflect to....lobbying? Seriously?

Yeah lobbbying, where foreign government can legally hire a lobby firm, to lobby our government directly for legislation that benefits that foreign nation.

You know, the very thing that is implied by saying the Russians colluded with trump to win.

You point to these social media campaigns, when a multi-national corporation with direct ties to Moscow, can donate money to a political campaign, and buy these same social media campaigns the Russians are accused of running.

If you tell me their is foreign influence that is systemic in our government, we can find common ground.

If you tell me that Russia poses some special, and distinct threat to the U.S. that doesnt exist elsewhere, and many times on a much deeper level with other nations, and we have a disagreement.
 
Ok, let's discuss the techniques Russia used to help Jill Stein and Bernie.

Got any sources on those techniques?

I ask because I would love it if people would start asking why Russia was anti-Hillary. That is a question I would love to see an answer to.

And I mean let's get specific. If you think it was because russia feared something specifically about Hillary clinton, explain exactly how either stein, Bernie, or trump didn't hold a position that was even more hostile to Russian interests.

See I have this theory about how the Russians were anti-hillary, not because of hillary, but because of who supported her. Specifically certain war hawks, and banksters, and perhaps more importantly a billionaire with an interest in the ukraine.

Names like soros, kissinger, Blankfield, dimon, and Kegan.

I thought it was fairly common knowledge her lying to him and the backstabbing if Syria was the reason.

The story is they went along with Libya with the promise from Clinton herself that we'd stay out of Syria. When it became apparent we had lied again. He went to war against Clinton
 
I would disagree, but considering that labor is going to be the realm of machines in 50 or 100 years, what is the alternative from the right?

I am not asking Trotsky, as that would be unfair to him, I want to know if anyone has an answer here on the right. What is the point of a merit based economy if we are about to strip all merit from everything and turn it into menial "service?"

A kind of advanced democratic socialism and a more efficient quasi-socialist economy seems to be the most viable choice for a society that eliminates work as we know it.

That said, the democratic, and liberal baby must not be tossed out for an authoritarian impulse that too often comes from the left.

Welcome aboard, comrade.

But, seriously, in the face of automation and increasingly inefficient retention of traditional labor, there is no immediately-apparent alternative other than some level of embracing socialism through the state.

The (somewhat humorous imo) reality is that, currently, human labor is unprecedentedly unproductive and inefficient. It eats at the core of Randian philosophy. But, through issuing entitlements like UBI and universal healthcare which stabilize citizens/consumers and leave them to their own devices to pay for nonessential things, individual human labor will become both more productive and more economically efficient through the elimination or tempering of wage floors. If Sharon Shit-for-brains has her essentials accommodated for, she can actually become an efficient worker by filling an economic role at her actual worth, in newly created positions for it.
 
I thought it was fairly common knowledge her lying to him and the backstabbing if Syria was the reason.

The story is they went along with Libya with the promise from Clinton herself that we'd stay out of Syria. When it became apparent we had lied again. He went to war against Clinton

Hmmm, that is interesting. Wouldn't that fall more on Obama's shoulders though?
 
Back
Top