3 ms·

Can you cite something to show that it is well known? I do not know this.

• buckbova 10y ago
  Look up Clinton and Correct The Record or CTR. There's a lot of noise out there but you can find references where several million dollars was paid for an internet misinformation campaign. > http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/fec-must-investigate-unprecedented-violations-campaign-finance-laws-clinton http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/fec-m... "Correct the Record: The Clinton-supporting super PAC, Correct the Record, asserts it can coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign as long as it doesn’t run paid advertising. Clinton’s attorneys are relying on a narrow 2006 FEC regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs written by unpaid volunteers, is off limits from regulation. But Correct the Record is not a volunteer blogging operation. It is a $6 million professional opposition research, surrogate training and messaging operation staffed with paid professional employees and operating out of a high-rise Washington, D.C. office building."
• pessimizer 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/ http://web.archive.org/web/20160421163946/http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/ http://web.archive.org/web/20160421163946/http://correctreco... http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolli... edit: Insufficiently neutral sources?
  • totally 10y ago
    Thanks! It's still a stretch to say that "Clinton paid trolls" since PACs (hybrid-PACs?) offer a layer of indirection.
    • jwtadvice2 10y ago
      But we would want to say the same thing about Russian intelligence and US intelligence and their 'paid trolls'. They do it through layers of obscurity exactly for deniability. We need to hold them all to the same standard. I don't know what that standard is, mind you.
    • colordrops 10y ago
      How is it a stretch? They were clearly and obviously working for Clinton.
      • totally 10y ago
        "working for" as in aligning their cause, but not necessarily "working for" as in being paid by. There's no indication that Clinton gave them money, is there?
        • colordrops 10y ago
          You can't be serious.
  • totally 10y ago
    No, I think it's good. Wikipedia, no, of course. :) But factcheck.org, for sure.