6 ms·

There's a difference between having strong opinions, and actually conspiring to have somebody elected. One is posting news, the other is creating news (see enti

There's a difference between having strong opinions, and actually conspiring to have somebody elected. One is posting news, the other is creating news (see entire Facebook groups from Russia posting fake news). There is still the question though: have other nations participated in this creation of news? Probably so, so perhaps the spot light shouldn't be on Russia only, but more generalized into this problem. But, the problem exists nonetheless and taking action is reasonable.

tertius 9y ago
If the action is taken because of political pressure then it's not about being reasonable. If they were being reasonable they would be listing a lot more organizations that spread propaganda than just RT. This looks completely reactionary.
pizzetta 9y ago
Has a conspiracy to have someone elected been confirmed? IFAIK, Russian ops was to sow distrust in the electorate not so much to favor one candidate over the other. The ultimate goal would be to have the elections questioned by the losers (whoever the winner was) in order to diminish US influence abroad as the winner would be busy with internal affairs. It was probably a bet against Hillary winning since she had a more hawkish international vision.
- awinder 9y ago
  Clinton's involvement with the Magnitsky Act gave Putin a lot to be specifically angry about, versus Trump who has a lot of existing ties to Russia (not to mention the campaign being filled with people who also had their own positive ties to Russia). It's possible that they did not have the specific goal of influencing for one candidate, but they had a ton more to gain from one specific candidate winning over the other. I think it takes some naiveté to assume they didn't have a focused effort on behalf of one candidate over the other.
  - pizzetta 9y ago
    That would make sense if the odds had been plus or minus 5 pts but by all accounts the odds were something like 93:7 in Hillary's favor. I don't think Russian intelligence had better understanding of our electorate than the DNC itself --they can't have been that out of touch with the people they were looking to represent.
    - hackinthebochs 9y ago
      Don't make the same mistake that Clinton did in buying into the media narrative of a landslide. Their stats were bad, hands down. 538 had the odds much closer.
fortythirteen 9y ago
Like when the CIA infiltrated the 2012 French election? https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/ https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/
- SEJeff 9y ago
  People still actually trust wikileaks? Assange just admitted that the Trump campaign approached him for the Hillary emails, yet that wasn't reported. Their unbiased release all of the information narrative fell over years ago. Now they're more or less tools used by Russia to sow dissent amongst the US and western / NATO nations. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-wikileaks-cambridge-analytica_us_59f1655de4b0af27f5899697 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-wikileak... So why didn't wikileaks mention that?
  - crummy 9y ago
    I agree that Assange acts very untrustworthy, but has anything (in terms of documents) they've released ever been shown to be false?
    - SEJeff 9y ago
      If you only release half of a narrative to fit your view, are you being truthful? It is debatable as it allows people to potentially infer untruths.
      - pizzetta 9y ago
        Are you saying they are withholding information or that they only get one side of the information? They can't publish what they don't receive.
        hackinthebochs 9y ago
        Assange actually admitted that they have stuff on Trump that they didn't release.
1001101 9y ago
I'd like to see some evidence as well. An adversarial media is a sign of a healthy democracy, and RT definitely filled that role with zeal. Their correspondents were often the only ones asking the "tough" questions at press briefings.

tertius 9y ago

If the action is taken because of political pressure then it's not about being reasonable. If they were being reasonable they would be listing a lot more organizations that spread propaganda than just RT. This looks completely reactionary.

pizzetta 9y ago

Has a conspiracy to have someone elected been confirmed? IFAIK, Russian ops was to sow distrust in the electorate not so much to favor one candidate over the other. The ultimate goal would be to have the elections questioned by the losers (whoever the winner was) in order to diminish US influence abroad as the winner would be busy with internal affairs. It was probably a bet against Hillary winning since she had a more hawkish international vision.

awinder 9y ago
Clinton's involvement with the Magnitsky Act gave Putin a lot to be specifically angry about, versus Trump who has a lot of existing ties to Russia (not to mention the campaign being filled with people who also had their own positive ties to Russia). It's possible that they did not have the specific goal of influencing for one candidate, but they had a ton more to gain from one specific candidate winning over the other. I think it takes some naiveté to assume they didn't have a focused effort on behalf of one candidate over the other.
- pizzetta 9y ago
  That would make sense if the odds had been plus or minus 5 pts but by all accounts the odds were something like 93:7 in Hillary's favor. I don't think Russian intelligence had better understanding of our electorate than the DNC itself --they can't have been that out of touch with the people they were looking to represent.
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    Don't make the same mistake that Clinton did in buying into the media narrative of a landslide. Their stats were bad, hands down. 538 had the odds much closer.

fortythirteen 9y ago

Like when the CIA infiltrated the 2012 French election? https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/ https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

SEJeff 9y ago
People still actually trust wikileaks? Assange just admitted that the Trump campaign approached him for the Hillary emails, yet that wasn't reported. Their unbiased release all of the information narrative fell over years ago. Now they're more or less tools used by Russia to sow dissent amongst the US and western / NATO nations. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-wikileaks-cambridge-analytica_us_59f1655de4b0af27f5899697 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-wikileak... So why didn't wikileaks mention that?
- crummy 9y ago
  I agree that Assange acts very untrustworthy, but has anything (in terms of documents) they've released ever been shown to be false?
  - SEJeff 9y ago
    If you only release half of a narrative to fit your view, are you being truthful? It is debatable as it allows people to potentially infer untruths.
    - pizzetta 9y ago
      Are you saying they are withholding information or that they only get one side of the information? They can't publish what they don't receive.
      - hackinthebochs 9y ago
        Assange actually admitted that they have stuff on Trump that they didn't release.

1001101 9y ago

I'd like to see some evidence as well. An adversarial media is a sign of a healthy democracy, and RT definitely filled that role with zeal. Their correspondents were often the only ones asking the "tough" questions at press briefings.