8 ms·

> By “Russiagate” are you referring to the FBI investing on of the Trump campaign’s communication with Russians? No. The FBI investigation I have no problem wi

> By “Russiagate” are you referring to the FBI investing on of the Trump campaign’s communication with Russians? No. The FBI investigation I have no problem with. The surrounding hysteria that led to Twitter banning real people as bots for expressing skepticism over foreign policy in i.e. the Middle East and the birth of various shady companies that promised to deal with the "bot problem", but were in fact using bots for spamming themselves[1]. > I’m not sure how investigating that was a bad idea. Investigating that wasn't. The various leaks that provided unnecessary fuel to the fire before the media storm before the investigators had their conclusions was not helpful however. > and a bunch of people pleaded guilty to crimes Yes. However these were usually for something they have done prior to working for Trump or for lying about certain details to the FBI, as far as I know no Americans were actually charged with conspiring with Russia during the election to benefit Trump, (whom I dislike BTW, but there's plenty of more substantial crimes that weren't looked at for some reason, like his dealings in Saudi Arabia even during the campaign or him using his hotels etc. for state business). > Should we have not investigated crimes because people find it too political? As I said above, the investigation I have no problem with. 1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/reid-hoffman-alabama-election-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/reid-hoffman-alabama-e...

take_a_breath 6y ago
“Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East? It sounds like your connecting a bunch of dots that aren’t there. People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned [1]: Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation. [1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba...
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > “Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East? I don't think you get my point at all. It's about any non-mainstream opinion on a political topic now. Specifically, Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of fear of being accused of hosting Russian bots. As a result, they overacted and are now banning everything in sight that's not mainstream enough. That means the next Iraq War, which all mainstream media were for, is going to have marginalized position on social media as these sorts of opinions are 'fringe' and banned. For example were this implemented back then, if you said Iraq did not have WMDs, you'd get a 'fact check' saying it did, even as that was false. Anything with words like 'military-industrial complex' etc. > People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned Right. That's exactly my point. They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before. Furthermore, all this sets a precedent that I am certain the Republicans are going to be happy to take masterful advantage of once Biden is president. All I am really saying is that while the FBI investigations themselves were fine in my opinion, the media frenzy and the resulting pressure on social media companies to ban everything in sight that's not NYT, (which does spread misinformation from time to time btw), so that they don't spread 'misinformation' was a short-sighted strategy that is very likely long-term going to be used against the left, which am not at all happy about.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    ==Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of being accused of hosting Russian bots.== But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. We know they existed [1] and still exist [2]. A bonus report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee [3]. ==They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before.== Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. Once they had evidence, they started banning. I’m not sure what point that proves. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/522503844/how-russian-twitter-bots-pumped-out-fake-news-during-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/52... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-army-behind-reopen-america-push-on-social-media-study-finds/#60fa2d7b39b2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-a... [3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. No. My premise relies on the idea that the Occupy accounts banned weren't bots, but were banned due to increased frenzy about banning everything non-mainstream as "Russian bots". I am not saying that Russian bots don't exist. Merely that the increased frenzy around them has led to a bunch of accounts being banned that are in fact neither bots, nor Russian, for merely expressing some non-mainstream views. That's a bit different than just banning actual Russian bots. I understand why they do it, in this environment, when unsure, proactively banning is the easiest way out, but that's exactly my problem with this. And it's not just Twitter either[1]. > Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. So in your view left-wing people who want to reform Wall Street or are anti-war should be banned? 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-political-activism-pages-inauthentic-behavior-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-...
    - thu2111 6y ago

take_a_breath 6y ago

“Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East? It sounds like your connecting a bunch of dots that aren’t there. People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned [1]: Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation. [1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba...

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> “Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East? I don't think you get my point at all. It's about any non-mainstream opinion on a political topic now. Specifically, Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of fear of being accused of hosting Russian bots. As a result, they overacted and are now banning everything in sight that's not mainstream enough. That means the next Iraq War, which all mainstream media were for, is going to have marginalized position on social media as these sorts of opinions are 'fringe' and banned. For example were this implemented back then, if you said Iraq did not have WMDs, you'd get a 'fact check' saying it did, even as that was false. Anything with words like 'military-industrial complex' etc. > People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned Right. That's exactly my point. They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before. Furthermore, all this sets a precedent that I am certain the Republicans are going to be happy to take masterful advantage of once Biden is president. All I am really saying is that while the FBI investigations themselves were fine in my opinion, the media frenzy and the resulting pressure on social media companies to ban everything in sight that's not NYT, (which does spread misinformation from time to time btw), so that they don't spread 'misinformation' was a short-sighted strategy that is very likely long-term going to be used against the left, which am not at all happy about.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  ==Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of being accused of hosting Russian bots.== But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. We know they existed [1] and still exist [2]. A bonus report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee [3]. ==They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before.== Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. Once they had evidence, they started banning. I’m not sure what point that proves. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/522503844/how-russian-twitter-bots-pumped-out-fake-news-during-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/52... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-army-behind-reopen-america-push-on-social-media-study-finds/#60fa2d7b39b2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-a... [3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. No. My premise relies on the idea that the Occupy accounts banned weren't bots, but were banned due to increased frenzy about banning everything non-mainstream as "Russian bots". I am not saying that Russian bots don't exist. Merely that the increased frenzy around them has led to a bunch of accounts being banned that are in fact neither bots, nor Russian, for merely expressing some non-mainstream views. That's a bit different than just banning actual Russian bots. I understand why they do it, in this environment, when unsure, proactively banning is the easiest way out, but that's exactly my problem with this. And it's not just Twitter either[1]. > Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. So in your view left-wing people who want to reform Wall Street or are anti-war should be banned? 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-political-activism-pages-inauthentic-behavior-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-...
  - thu2111 6y ago