3 ms·

The problem with this, of course, is that even Pulitzer winning organizations are guilty of being fake news. And they're, arguably, far more damaging than Natio

The problem with this, of course, is that even Pulitzer winning organizations are guilty of being fake news. And they're, arguably, far more damaging than National Enquirer type headlines. https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda/amp https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...

makomk 10y ago
That got even more ridiculous when Josh Marshall of TPM and Paul Krugman of the New York Times got pissed off at all the people who didn't buy it because of course, everyone knows that Russia was influencing the election: https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/802192619627540480 https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/802192619627540480 Just like the most obnoxious fake-news-spreading social media users, the fact that it confirmed their belief was more important than its obvious fakeness. And make no mistake, a dodgy anonymous group spreading dubious but terrifying stats about Russian propaganda whilst redefining that to mean any site posting politicial views they disagree with is a form of fake news, even if they eventually managed to find a reputable news organisation that would launder their claims for them.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  The problem with the NSA database -- and I assume the Russian equivalent -- is that it can be used to hide interference in other nations (or domestically), using social graph information and psychology profiles. I don't believe that the issues which won Trump the election are because of Russian influence -- they're generational scale strategic blunders on the part of the US -- but that several of them became "active" at a critical moment in US politics is precisely how covert warfare between large nations is enacted (or, at least, is the obvious extension of Cold War tactics). It's very likely that Russia executed an operation against the US during the most recent election cycle. The actual effectiveness of that, and the culpability we bear in leaving the nation is such a vulnerable state is a matter of considerable debate.

makomk 10y ago

That got even more ridiculous when Josh Marshall of TPM and Paul Krugman of the New York Times got pissed off at all the people who didn't buy it because of course, everyone knows that Russia was influencing the election: https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/802192619627540480 https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/802192619627540480 Just like the most obnoxious fake-news-spreading social media users, the fact that it confirmed their belief was more important than its obvious fakeness. And make no mistake, a dodgy anonymous group spreading dubious but terrifying stats about Russian propaganda whilst redefining that to mean any site posting politicial views they disagree with is a form of fake news, even if they eventually managed to find a reputable news organisation that would launder their claims for them.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
The problem with the NSA database -- and I assume the Russian equivalent -- is that it can be used to hide interference in other nations (or domestically), using social graph information and psychology profiles. I don't believe that the issues which won Trump the election are because of Russian influence -- they're generational scale strategic blunders on the part of the US -- but that several of them became "active" at a critical moment in US politics is precisely how covert warfare between large nations is enacted (or, at least, is the obvious extension of Cold War tactics). It's very likely that Russia executed an operation against the US during the most recent election cycle. The actual effectiveness of that, and the culpability we bear in leaving the nation is such a vulnerable state is a matter of considerable debate.