6 ms·

The presidential election showed conclusively who the real propagandists in America are, and it’s not Russia. I’ll admit that I didn’t read the article, and thi

by montyf 9y ago

The presidential election showed conclusively who the real propagandists in America are, and it’s not Russia. I’ll admit that I didn’t read the article, and this comment may not even be relevant, but I can’t take the Russian propaganda meme at all seriously, either in this lifetime or the next or the one after that. This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media. Feel free to downvote/remove this comment.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media. Oh sure, totally fake news: >A leak of internal data from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency discovered by The Daily Beast serves as the first confirmation that the Russian troll farm deployed its online agitators on Reddit as part of its campaign to interfere in American politics. https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-used-reddit-and-tumblr-to-troll-the-2016-election https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-used-reddit-and-tumbl... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/trump-russia-investigation-reddit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/trump-rus...
seibelj 9y ago
I downvoted because this comment is cryptic and adds nothing to the conversation. Saying something controversial / conspiratorial is not automatically bad, as long as you provide some logic and evidence. But this is just devoid of value.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zzzeek 9y ago
Here is a 37 page federal indictment of employees of the Internet Research Agency who were deeply involved in Russian-produced propaganda in the 2016 election. This is neither a "meme" nor is it a creation of any "media" source. Worth a read: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
- briandear 9y ago
  The question that is critical though -> was it with the knowledge and support of Trump or was the agistation designed simply to sow discord by taking out the front runner (Clinton.) My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians, So, some are under the impression that Trump colluded with the Russians while the real story appears to be that Russia wasn’t colluding with Trump but simply trying to create chaos over the election process. There is evidence to this because some of this Russian stuff dates back to 2014 — long before Trump was even thinking about running and far before anyone took him to be a contender. There will be the argument that Trump’s campaign met with Russian officials during the campaign. However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.) This Russia thing is real; that Trump was part of it is not. Honestly, Trump wasn't sophisticated enough to run a multinational spy/propaganda operation with the Russians. If he were, then that would necessarily discredit arguments that he isn’t smart or sophisticated enough to be president.
  - zzzeek 9y ago
    > My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians That doesn't matter. The Russian government interfered, that's a fact. Also a fact, the president is illegally refusing to enact sanctions against Russia passed overwhelmingly by congress in retaliation for this interference. You should be extremely concerned that the president is actively breaking the law every day by refusing to defend the country against a foreign enemy. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/high-ranking-gop-congressman-blasts-trump-failure-enact-russia-sanctions-price-must-paid/ https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/high-ranking-gop-congressma... > However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.) it is not illegal to speak to foreign governments during a political campaign. You should read up on the difference between accepting stolen materials from foreign governments, allowing foreign governments to spend money on a US poltiical campaign, vs. merely speaking to foreign governments. Not to mention that the House Intelligence Committee would be all over a Clinton scandal in the election if they could find one. They tried to fabricate the notion that the Russians were actually working for Clinton. That was a better stream of inquiry, they felt, than whatever this "meeting with Chinese officials" that some right wing blog has told you is important (I can't even find any google results for it).
georgeburdell 9y ago
Agreed. The Russia meddling controversy is the Democrat's "birther" movement, ameliorated only by the fact that there appears to be some truth to it, albeit with grossly overstated effects. It's a bogeyman that represents one half of the US population's inability to face the reality of who won the election and how they did it. Trump's supporters have been around and hateful since long before 2016.
- zzzeek 9y ago
  again, here is a 37 page indictment of Russian citizens with deep detail over their illegal propaganda activities within the 2016 election: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download please illustrate the federal indictments that were produced to provide in depth evidence that Obama was in fact "born in Kenya".
  - puppetmaster400 9y ago
    Allegedly from their home country, they purchased $100k of ads (google it) and spent most of it after the election was over. Compared to amount of direct foreign investment into the left wing party. That spent the $1.2B of donations.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Grue3 9y ago
    And all of this would have precisely zero effect if Democrats managed to put up a candidate who isn't terrible enough to lose to Trump. US elections isn't the only ones they were trying to influence. In France, they went all in on Marine Le Pen, even the domestic media in Russia was singing her praises and vilifying Macron almost constantly. Guess what, she lost terribly in the end. No propaganda in the world would have lead her to win, just because the other guy was a much better candidate.
  - georgeburdell 9y ago
PeterMikhailov 9y ago
You're not supposed to reveal you haven't read the article at all before commenting.
- krapp 9y ago
  montyf is likely trying to imply that the article isn't worth reading, because it's so obvious and self evident that the entire premise is "just more deflection and misdirection by the American media." Note that they even asked for downvotes, in order to include Hacker News in the narrative of global propaganda and censorship, by way of appearing a martyr to the cause. I'm surprised they didn't throw a reference to "sour grapes" or mention the DNC while they were at it.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Actually agree. Instead of blaming the Russians the US parties should watch their own campaign ads and realize that they have trained their people to believe any nonsense as long as it helps the interests of "their" party. Of course it's much easier to blame the bad Russians instead of bringing civility and rational thought into their own political system.
tinbad 9y ago
Growing up in Russia I’ve seen the propaganda spread within the country, I have no doubt they use the same tactics abroad as it has become so easy/cheap to reach unwitting users on social platforms. I don’t think Russia had/has a specific goal I mind other than disruption. I don’t believe they necessarily wanted Trump because of some evil plan/agreement. The evil plan is to take advantage of gullible Americans and create instability. Of course it takes more than just a Facebook campaign and it helps that the US is already pretty devided as it stands and there seems to be a perfect political storm to take advantage of. If you see how they talk on Russian TV about the “decline of the West” and how bad every politician is, pretty much 24/7 you’ll probably better understand where it’s coming from.
puppetmaster400 9y ago
Yes, the HN moderate anything supportive of right. HN is a left wing echo chamber (period). I have been down voted many times with different names, and had my posts removed.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  And yet this article was flagged off the front page within 20 minutes of reaching it. Meanwhile we’re on our fourth “Google discriminated against white guys” identipost on the fp in 24 hours. That doesn’t exactly reek of “Left Wing echo chamber” now does it?
  - puppetmaster400 9y ago
    what
- PeterMikhailov 9y ago
  > HN is a left wing echo chamber (period). Strange, I would argue it's the complete opposite. The commenters here are profoundly neo-liberal (not left wing at all).
  - puppetmaster400 9y ago
    I don't know what a neo-liberal is, but sounds left. From right POV, the more left you go, the more enlarged the gov. The more right you go, the more personal freedom. Most know what the TEA party stands for: it is in the name. So you'd agree that neo-liberal is to the left of the TEA party on that scale.
    - PeterMikhailov 9y ago
      Leftists will naturally assume you should enact policies that encourage equality for all, but also believe that much of society's problems derive from income disparity. They will push for policies that shift the tax burden from the poor end of the spectrum to the richer end of the spectrum. I would argue that neo-liberals believe in equality for all, but aren't willing to push for the income redistribution policies that leftists believe in. They believe that the standard economic policies of most governments on earth, to take a hands off approach to banks, labor and trade, is fine. Sometimes this is labeled as "classically liberal".

by montyf 9y ago

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

>This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media. Oh sure, totally fake news: >A leak of internal data from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency discovered by The Daily Beast serves as the first confirmation that the Russian troll farm deployed its online agitators on Reddit as part of its campaign to interfere in American politics. https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-used-reddit-and-tumblr-to-troll-the-2016-election https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-used-reddit-and-tumbl... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/trump-russia-investigation-reddit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/trump-rus...

seibelj 9y ago

I downvoted because this comment is cryptic and adds nothing to the conversation. Saying something controversial / conspiratorial is not automatically bad, as long as you provide some logic and evidence. But this is just devoid of value.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zzzeek 9y ago

Here is a 37 page federal indictment of employees of the Internet Research Agency who were deeply involved in Russian-produced propaganda in the 2016 election. This is neither a "meme" nor is it a creation of any "media" source. Worth a read: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

briandear 9y ago
The question that is critical though -> was it with the knowledge and support of Trump or was the agistation designed simply to sow discord by taking out the front runner (Clinton.) My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians, So, some are under the impression that Trump colluded with the Russians while the real story appears to be that Russia wasn’t colluding with Trump but simply trying to create chaos over the election process. There is evidence to this because some of this Russian stuff dates back to 2014 — long before Trump was even thinking about running and far before anyone took him to be a contender. There will be the argument that Trump’s campaign met with Russian officials during the campaign. However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.) This Russia thing is real; that Trump was part of it is not. Honestly, Trump wasn't sophisticated enough to run a multinational spy/propaganda operation with the Russians. If he were, then that would necessarily discredit arguments that he isn’t smart or sophisticated enough to be president.
- zzzeek 9y ago
  > My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians That doesn't matter. The Russian government interfered, that's a fact. Also a fact, the president is illegally refusing to enact sanctions against Russia passed overwhelmingly by congress in retaliation for this interference. You should be extremely concerned that the president is actively breaking the law every day by refusing to defend the country against a foreign enemy. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/high-ranking-gop-congressman-blasts-trump-failure-enact-russia-sanctions-price-must-paid/ https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/high-ranking-gop-congressma... > However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.) it is not illegal to speak to foreign governments during a political campaign. You should read up on the difference between accepting stolen materials from foreign governments, allowing foreign governments to spend money on a US poltiical campaign, vs. merely speaking to foreign governments. Not to mention that the House Intelligence Committee would be all over a Clinton scandal in the election if they could find one. They tried to fabricate the notion that the Russians were actually working for Clinton. That was a better stream of inquiry, they felt, than whatever this "meeting with Chinese officials" that some right wing blog has told you is important (I can't even find any google results for it).

georgeburdell 9y ago

Agreed. The Russia meddling controversy is the Democrat's "birther" movement, ameliorated only by the fact that there appears to be some truth to it, albeit with grossly overstated effects. It's a bogeyman that represents one half of the US population's inability to face the reality of who won the election and how they did it. Trump's supporters have been around and hateful since long before 2016.

zzzeek 9y ago
again, here is a 37 page indictment of Russian citizens with deep detail over their illegal propaganda activities within the 2016 election: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download please illustrate the federal indictments that were produced to provide in depth evidence that Obama was in fact "born in Kenya".
- puppetmaster400 9y ago
  Allegedly from their home country, they purchased $100k of ads (google it) and spent most of it after the election was over. Compared to amount of direct foreign investment into the left wing party. That spent the $1.2B of donations.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Grue3 9y ago
  And all of this would have precisely zero effect if Democrats managed to put up a candidate who isn't terrible enough to lose to Trump. US elections isn't the only ones they were trying to influence. In France, they went all in on Marine Le Pen, even the domestic media in Russia was singing her praises and vilifying Macron almost constantly. Guess what, she lost terribly in the end. No propaganda in the world would have lead her to win, just because the other guy was a much better candidate.
- georgeburdell 9y ago

PeterMikhailov 9y ago

You're not supposed to reveal you haven't read the article at all before commenting.

krapp 9y ago
montyf is likely trying to imply that the article isn't worth reading, because it's so obvious and self evident that the entire premise is "just more deflection and misdirection by the American media." Note that they even asked for downvotes, in order to include Hacker News in the narrative of global propaganda and censorship, by way of appearing a martyr to the cause. I'm surprised they didn't throw a reference to "sour grapes" or mention the DNC while they were at it.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Actually agree. Instead of blaming the Russians the US parties should watch their own campaign ads and realize that they have trained their people to believe any nonsense as long as it helps the interests of "their" party. Of course it's much easier to blame the bad Russians instead of bringing civility and rational thought into their own political system.

tinbad 9y ago

Growing up in Russia I’ve seen the propaganda spread within the country, I have no doubt they use the same tactics abroad as it has become so easy/cheap to reach unwitting users on social platforms. I don’t think Russia had/has a specific goal I mind other than disruption. I don’t believe they necessarily wanted Trump because of some evil plan/agreement. The evil plan is to take advantage of gullible Americans and create instability. Of course it takes more than just a Facebook campaign and it helps that the US is already pretty devided as it stands and there seems to be a perfect political storm to take advantage of. If you see how they talk on Russian TV about the “decline of the West” and how bad every politician is, pretty much 24/7 you’ll probably better understand where it’s coming from.

puppetmaster400 9y ago

Yes, the HN moderate anything supportive of right. HN is a left wing echo chamber (period). I have been down voted many times with different names, and had my posts removed.

IntronExon 9y ago
And yet this article was flagged off the front page within 20 minutes of reaching it. Meanwhile we’re on our fourth “Google discriminated against white guys” identipost on the fp in 24 hours. That doesn’t exactly reek of “Left Wing echo chamber” now does it?
- puppetmaster400 9y ago
  what
PeterMikhailov 9y ago
> HN is a left wing echo chamber (period). Strange, I would argue it's the complete opposite. The commenters here are profoundly neo-liberal (not left wing at all).
- puppetmaster400 9y ago
  I don't know what a neo-liberal is, but sounds left. From right POV, the more left you go, the more enlarged the gov. The more right you go, the more personal freedom. Most know what the TEA party stands for: it is in the name. So you'd agree that neo-liberal is to the left of the TEA party on that scale.
  - PeterMikhailov 9y ago
    Leftists will naturally assume you should enact policies that encourage equality for all, but also believe that much of society's problems derive from income disparity. They will push for policies that shift the tax burden from the poor end of the spectrum to the richer end of the spectrum. I would argue that neo-liberals believe in equality for all, but aren't willing to push for the income redistribution policies that leftists believe in. They believe that the standard economic policies of most governments on earth, to take a hands off approach to banks, labor and trade, is fine. Sometimes this is labeled as "classically liberal".