6 ms·

I think they've just discovered that people and organizations from other countries can post messages on reddit that pertain to US politics. And that reddit does

I think they've just discovered that people and organizations from other countries can post messages on reddit that pertain to US politics. And that reddit does not protect US users from seeing these potentially unsafe opinions during election periods.

Stanish 9y ago
One of reddit's top locations for users is a US military base. The problem is not just with foreign manipulation.
craftyguy 9y ago
Oh for fuck's sake. It's not like the candidates' rhetoric towards each other is any more accurate. Since most people seem to be incapable of scrutinizing information they receive, I guess we need politicians to save us by legislating away the problem!
- sp332 9y ago
  It's not about accuracy. It's about whose interests are being served. At least if the R/D's lie to you it's still some kind of American.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    So it's about being lied to to support someone gaining power vs being lied to to fuck with the political system in the US? How about the root of the actual problem: that the voting populous is trained to absorb information without questioning its authenticity or accuracy. It's more convenient to hear something you agree with and believe it is true, so this is the general way that folks "become informed." Now this strategy of "becoming informed" is biting us in the ass, and the plan is to play this cat/mouse game with questionable sources of information rather than try to tackle the actual problem?
    - sp332 9y ago
      No, it's really a separate issue. It's possible to influence an election even without lying. It's just undemocratic and illegal for someone outside the country to try to persuade people in the country to vote a certain way.
      - unpwn 9y ago
        How is it illegal for someone outside the US to comment on a US election thread? Is it illegal for CNN to talk about Russian politics? Is it illegal for Russian media to cover US politics? Why would it be legal for institutions but not for individuals? How is any of that undemocratic?
        hsod 9y ago
        If they are paid to comment on behalf of or in opposition to a particular candidate, it's (probably) a violation of campaign finance laws. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Russian with a personal interest in American politics is barred from discussing a US election.
        sp332 9y ago
        The people who are not voting should not be involved in the vote. It's not illegal for Russian media to cover American politics in Russia, but I think it was illegal for them to buy a bunch of ads in America without disclosing their Russian origin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/twitter-finds-hundreds-of-accounts-tied-to-russian-operatives/2017/09/28/6cf26f7e-a484-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/twitter-find...
        craftyguy 9y ago
        I don't think that is (currently) illegal. Morally wrong? Yea, probably, but that's beside the point.. and honestly this is all a red herring since it's just Congress trying to treat the symptom and not the disease.
        9y ago
ddingus 9y ago
LMAO! That is called the First Amendment. The fact that others in the world discuss US politics is not a problem. The deplorable state of US politics is the problem. No citizen of the US needs to be protected. We will find when politicians better represent Americans, not big money, no protection is needed. Same goes for media. When do you see a solid discussion of net neutrality presented in the mainstream media, or an economic story told from the labor point of view? Two super easy examples. People go seeking elsewhere, and with all of that comes these worries over people actually discussing policy! Shocker. It's as if having a real conversation is a threat somehow. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it should be.
- lobf 9y ago
  >No citizen of the US needs to be protected. ...what?
  - pdx 9y ago
    He said "No citizen of the US needs to be protected". US Citizens are allowed to hear opinions of others when engaging in political discussion. That's why it's called a discussion. If you "protect" them, because the opinion they are hearing might be from a boilerroom overseas or more likely, a DNC or RNC funded organization here in the US, you are almost certainly going to swing the pendulum too far and end up doing far more destruction to the democratic process than those you started off "protecting" us from. Look at Facebook's use of snopes.com as their "fact checkers". We now know that snopes.com is extremely politically biased. People who say they are protecting you from something are usually victimizing you instead. Please don't protect me.
    - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
      We now know that snopes.com is extremely politically biased. Do we know that? Really? Or do "we" mean "it seems to me that Snopes.com is debunking reports from my side of the political aisle more than they are from the other side, therefore Snopes.com is extremely politically biased?" Because even if that initial premise is true, "Snopes is unfair to my side" is not the only possible explanation.

Stanish 9y ago

One of reddit's top locations for users is a US military base. The problem is not just with foreign manipulation.

craftyguy 9y ago

Oh for fuck's sake. It's not like the candidates' rhetoric towards each other is any more accurate. Since most people seem to be incapable of scrutinizing information they receive, I guess we need politicians to save us by legislating away the problem!

sp332 9y ago
It's not about accuracy. It's about whose interests are being served. At least if the R/D's lie to you it's still some kind of American.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  So it's about being lied to to support someone gaining power vs being lied to to fuck with the political system in the US? How about the root of the actual problem: that the voting populous is trained to absorb information without questioning its authenticity or accuracy. It's more convenient to hear something you agree with and believe it is true, so this is the general way that folks "become informed." Now this strategy of "becoming informed" is biting us in the ass, and the plan is to play this cat/mouse game with questionable sources of information rather than try to tackle the actual problem?
  - sp332 9y ago
    No, it's really a separate issue. It's possible to influence an election even without lying. It's just undemocratic and illegal for someone outside the country to try to persuade people in the country to vote a certain way.
    - unpwn 9y ago
      How is it illegal for someone outside the US to comment on a US election thread? Is it illegal for CNN to talk about Russian politics? Is it illegal for Russian media to cover US politics? Why would it be legal for institutions but not for individuals? How is any of that undemocratic?
      - hsod 9y ago
        If they are paid to comment on behalf of or in opposition to a particular candidate, it's (probably) a violation of campaign finance laws. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Russian with a personal interest in American politics is barred from discussing a US election.
      - sp332 9y ago
        The people who are not voting should not be involved in the vote. It's not illegal for Russian media to cover American politics in Russia, but I think it was illegal for them to buy a bunch of ads in America without disclosing their Russian origin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/twitter-finds-hundreds-of-accounts-tied-to-russian-operatives/2017/09/28/6cf26f7e-a484-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/twitter-find...
        craftyguy 9y ago
        I don't think that is (currently) illegal. Morally wrong? Yea, probably, but that's beside the point.. and honestly this is all a red herring since it's just Congress trying to treat the symptom and not the disease.
        9y ago

ddingus 9y ago

LMAO! That is called the First Amendment. The fact that others in the world discuss US politics is not a problem. The deplorable state of US politics is the problem. No citizen of the US needs to be protected. We will find when politicians better represent Americans, not big money, no protection is needed. Same goes for media. When do you see a solid discussion of net neutrality presented in the mainstream media, or an economic story told from the labor point of view? Two super easy examples. People go seeking elsewhere, and with all of that comes these worries over people actually discussing policy! Shocker. It's as if having a real conversation is a threat somehow. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it should be.

lobf 9y ago
>No citizen of the US needs to be protected. ...what?
- pdx 9y ago
  He said "No citizen of the US needs to be protected". US Citizens are allowed to hear opinions of others when engaging in political discussion. That's why it's called a discussion. If you "protect" them, because the opinion they are hearing might be from a boilerroom overseas or more likely, a DNC or RNC funded organization here in the US, you are almost certainly going to swing the pendulum too far and end up doing far more destruction to the democratic process than those you started off "protecting" us from. Look at Facebook's use of snopes.com as their "fact checkers". We now know that snopes.com is extremely politically biased. People who say they are protecting you from something are usually victimizing you instead. Please don't protect me.
  - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
    We now know that snopes.com is extremely politically biased. Do we know that? Really? Or do "we" mean "it seems to me that Snopes.com is debunking reports from my side of the political aisle more than they are from the other side, therefore Snopes.com is extremely politically biased?" Because even if that initial premise is true, "Snopes is unfair to my side" is not the only possible explanation.