4 ms·

That is entirely possible but I don’t trust Russia Today as a source, and, I have never heard of IJR before. Would like to see other sources saying the same.

nailer 7y ago
Keep on mind the top post is recommending we read a Vox media site.
- compuguy 7y ago
  Last time I checked, Vox media isn't tied to, nor funded by the Russian government. Russia Today (RT) is.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    Is Fox News funded by the Russian Government? If not, does that make them ok? NPR is funded by the US government does that make everything they say untrue? Seems like it might be better to use critical thinking of work off original sources rather than trusting any media organization to do that for you.
    - compuguy 7y ago
      That's what I do in general with articles. Russia Today has a pretty consistent and documented history of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        The New York Times has a documented history of being a propaganda outlet for the US government: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-wa... Just curious do you bring that up in every time someone quotes them as well?
      - einpoklum 7y ago
        The Wikipedia article says that _critics_ of RT regard it as a propaganda outlet... which is not quite what you said. TBH though, RT has a bunch of Russian-angle propaganda in some of its shows. Those are mostly the shows hosted by actual Russians, or with Russian/living-in-Russia panelists; and their newscasts. Other shows, particularly those by non-Russian journalists/creators, aren't like that. Of course, it is a Russian state entity which selects which people and shows get to be on the network. It seems to me like the main influence on the non-Russian shows is that they refrain from covering or referring to internal Russian affairs and politics.
        travmatt 7y ago
        Russia Today has had multiple journalists resign, citing they could not support their propaganda efforts in good conscience. One journalist resigned on air, apologizing for “whitewashing Putin's action” in downing mh17. Another resigned rather than leave the safety of the US and travel to Russian occupied Crimea. To act like these are commonplace occurrences in journalism strains credulity.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They've just been fined by the UK broadcasting regulator for systemic and repeated bias in reporting the Novichok poisonings, and withdrawing their broadcast licence was considered.
- kspacewalk 7y ago
  Vox is not a conspiracy theory laden government propaganda outlet.
  - robdachshund 7y ago
    Is this supposed to be ironic
  - compuguy 7y ago
    Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make in my previous comment.
  - nailer 7y ago
    Vox is a conspiracy theory laden non-goverment propaganda outlet.
barry-cotter 7y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#4554d82b4838 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are... > As the Times put it, the massive exporting of private user data triggered repeated alarms at Facebook due to the volume of profile data going out the door, but that “in each case, the company was satisfied the campaign was not violating its privacy and data standards.” In all, through its data efforts, the campaign ended up with a database of 15 million persuadable voters. > In short, according to the Times’ reporting, which is borne out by many other reports of the time, the Obama campaign engaged in nearly identical activity to what Cambridge Analytica is claimed to have done: they took a set of users who willingly contributed their data to a cause and quietly mined their friend lists, downloading immense volumes of private material from unwitting individuals that never authorized, let alone had any idea, that a political campaign was harvesting their information from Facebook simply because a person they were connected with had given the organization permission to harvest their information. https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-said-facebook-was-once-on-our-side/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-s... > Obama’s former media director: Facebook was once ‘on our side’ > A former media director for the Obama campaign said Facebook allowed them to access the personal data of its users in 2011 because the social media giant was “on our side.” > “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side,” Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America, wrote Sunday on Twitter. > Davidsen said she and her team were able to gather massive amounts of personal information from Facebook users, as well as their friends. Here’s Carol Davidsen’s Twitter account where this entire story comes from https://mobile.twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997 https://mobile.twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997 Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975?s=20 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975?s=20 They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side. https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997?s=20 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997?s=20

nailer 7y ago

Keep on mind the top post is recommending we read a Vox media site.

compuguy 7y ago
Last time I checked, Vox media isn't tied to, nor funded by the Russian government. Russia Today (RT) is.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Is Fox News funded by the Russian Government? If not, does that make them ok? NPR is funded by the US government does that make everything they say untrue? Seems like it might be better to use critical thinking of work off original sources rather than trusting any media organization to do that for you.
  - compuguy 7y ago
    That's what I do in general with articles. Russia Today has a pretty consistent and documented history of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      The New York Times has a documented history of being a propaganda outlet for the US government: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-wa... Just curious do you bring that up in every time someone quotes them as well?
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      The Wikipedia article says that _critics_ of RT regard it as a propaganda outlet... which is not quite what you said. TBH though, RT has a bunch of Russian-angle propaganda in some of its shows. Those are mostly the shows hosted by actual Russians, or with Russian/living-in-Russia panelists; and their newscasts. Other shows, particularly those by non-Russian journalists/creators, aren't like that. Of course, it is a Russian state entity which selects which people and shows get to be on the network. It seems to me like the main influence on the non-Russian shows is that they refrain from covering or referring to internal Russian affairs and politics.
      - travmatt 7y ago
        Russia Today has had multiple journalists resign, citing they could not support their propaganda efforts in good conscience. One journalist resigned on air, apologizing for “whitewashing Putin's action” in downing mh17. Another resigned rather than leave the safety of the US and travel to Russian occupied Crimea. To act like these are commonplace occurrences in journalism strains credulity.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They've just been fined by the UK broadcasting regulator for systemic and repeated bias in reporting the Novichok poisonings, and withdrawing their broadcast licence was considered.
kspacewalk 7y ago
Vox is not a conspiracy theory laden government propaganda outlet.
- robdachshund 7y ago
  Is this supposed to be ironic
- compuguy 7y ago
  Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make in my previous comment.
- nailer 7y ago
  Vox is a conspiracy theory laden non-goverment propaganda outlet.

barry-cotter 7y ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#4554d82b4838 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are... > As the Times put it, the massive exporting of private user data triggered repeated alarms at Facebook due to the volume of profile data going out the door, but that “in each case, the company was satisfied the campaign was not violating its privacy and data standards.” In all, through its data efforts, the campaign ended up with a database of 15 million persuadable voters. > In short, according to the Times’ reporting, which is borne out by many other reports of the time, the Obama campaign engaged in nearly identical activity to what Cambridge Analytica is claimed to have done: they took a set of users who willingly contributed their data to a cause and quietly mined their friend lists, downloading immense volumes of private material from unwitting individuals that never authorized, let alone had any idea, that a political campaign was harvesting their information from Facebook simply because a person they were connected with had given the organization permission to harvest their information. https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-said-facebook-was-once-on-our-side/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-s... > Obama’s former media director: Facebook was once ‘on our side’ > A former media director for the Obama campaign said Facebook allowed them to access the personal data of its users in 2011 because the social media giant was “on our side.” > “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side,” Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America, wrote Sunday on Twitter. > Davidsen said she and her team were able to gather massive amounts of personal information from Facebook users, as well as their friends. Here’s Carol Davidsen’s Twitter account where this entire story comes from https://mobile.twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997 https://mobile.twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997 Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975?s=20 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975?s=20 They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side. https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997?s=20 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997?s=20