None Of This Is True...#DCBlackOut

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

 

[Sunsettommy]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this mean you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

 

[Sunsettommy]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

You are seriously going to say the media never post fake news?

By the way, I didn't dispute your article at all, how come you didn't notice that?

 

[westwall]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

There's your Russian interference. They know Trump is a threat to them so they are pulling out the stops to try and make him lose the election.

Take a look at it this way, china, russia, iran, all of the big threats to the US are lead by dictators.

The US has experienced a form of soft dictatorship in that the ruling elite controlled all aspects of our political existence.

Then Trump came along and flipped over their apple cart and the political class went batshit crazy as they watched him start to dismantle their years of work setting themselves up to be invincible.

If you truly believe in the Republic, then you should support Trump.

If, on the other hand, you want fascism, then fight against the Republic.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

You are seriously going to say the media never post fake news?

By the way, I didn't dispute your article at all, how come you didn't notice that?

I'd hardly say NPR is reliable media. Just another left loon propaganda site. Much like PBS

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

You are seriously going to say the media never post fake news?

By the way, I didn't dispute your article at all, how come you didn't notice that?

I'd hardly say NPR is reliable media. Just another left loon propaganda site. Much like PBS

I would disagree. Simply because you don't like them doesn't make them a propaganda site. They have a good reputation for accuracy. Point out what is wrong with that particular article? Was that picture of the fire REAL? Start with that.

 

[Pete7469]

Are you asserting that bed wetting communists did not try to burn down St John's Cathedral?

Those were the white supremacists I suppose, the ones Trump is going to send troops after, but you don't want them oppressed? Do you oppose white supremacists who destroy shit (show me where any have in the last 40 years) or support leftists who destroy shit?

A look at damage inside historic St. John's Church, which burned during protests

The church's rector says he forgives whoever set the church on fire.

www.today.com

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

There's your Russian interference. They know Trump is a threat to them so they are pulling out the stops to try and make him lose the election.

Trump is no threat to Russia, from day one when he tried removing sanctions. He's done next to nothing to combat their disinformation, attempts at interfering in elections, etc.

Take a look at it this way, china, russia, iran, all of the big threats to the US are lead by dictators.

The US has experienced a form of soft dictatorship in that the ruling elite controlled all aspects of our political existence.

Then Trump came along and flipped over their apple cart and the political class went batshit crazy as they watched him start to dismantle their years of work setting themselves up to be invincible.

Oh really? Trump is on record openly admiring some pretty abhorrent dictators. He certainly hasn't upset Putin's hold, nor has he upset Rocket Boy's grip, he openly admires Dutarte, he supports the increasingly authoritarian rightwing systems in former Soviet Bloc nations....

If you truly believe in the Republic, then you should support Trump.

If, on the other hand, you want fascism, then fight against the Republic.

I support neither Trump nor Fascism and I see Trump as an incompetent, self-interested tool who can be bought by flattery and...likely other things as well. My opinion.

I DO however see the internet and social media as our newest platform for war. It's no longer conventional warfare - it's disinformation.

Regardless of how we feel about Trump, don't you think we should be concerned about this?

 

[Coyote]

Are you asserting that bed wetting communists did not try to burn down St John's Cathedral?

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

You are seriously going to say the media never post fake news?

By the way, I didn't dispute your article at all, how come you didn't notice that?

I'd hardly say NPR is reliable media. Just another left loon propaganda site. Much like PBS

I would disagree. Simply because you don't like them doesn't make them a propaganda site. They have a good reputation for accuracy. Point out what is wrong with that particular article? Was that picture of the fire REAL? Start with that.

I simply don't care if you agree or disagree.

I don't read left loon crap.... probably why I've blocked nearly every loon on this forum. You loons give me a headache.

You bawed, bitched and moaned for 3 1/2 years while posting CNN, MSNBC,and other fake crap? You people need help

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

You are seriously going to say the media never post fake news?

By the way, I didn't dispute your article at all, how come you didn't notice that?

I didn't say that - but media seems to be so broad a term it means anything from blogs to traditional mainstream sources. I think traditional mainstream sources are far less likely to print fake news (as in news they KNOW is fake) - everyone prints erroneous stuff - but if they are reputable they will issue corrections and updates as more info becomes available. The 24 hour cycle and rush to be the first has been a disaster in accuracy. The other thing with MSM - if they are too reckless with fact checking, they can and are held to account. Remember the episode with Dan Rather and the supposed letter about Bush?

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

Does this you admit that media produce a lot of fake news, after all you seem to try hard to defend a media that has produced fake crap every week.

The hypocrisy is noted.

Define "media" please. And did you actually read the article?

You are seriously going to say the media never post fake news?

By the way, I didn't dispute your article at all, how come you didn't notice that?

I'd hardly say NPR is reliable media. Just another left loon propaganda site. Much like PBS

I would disagree. Simply because you don't like them doesn't make them a propaganda site. They have a good reputation for accuracy. Point out what is wrong with that particular article? Was that picture of the fire REAL? Start with that.

I simply don't care if you agree or disagree.

I don't read left loon crap.... probably why I've blocked nearly every loon on this forum. You loons give me a headache.

You bawed, bitched and moaned for 3 1/2 years while posting CNN, MSNBC,and other fake crap? You people need help

Great answer. Thanks for actually addressing the discussion to the best of your limited ability. Given that, I will duly disregard your commentary.

 

[luchitociencia]

Usually the media writes the news in a way to obtain more profit. The more morbid the news is presented, the more gain for the news companies.

In this case, where Floyd the criminal was dead by police abuse of power, the media is more interested to follow idiotic comments like "Russian intervention", "racial discrimination", etc.

The base point is to investigate how the hell Floyd the criminal obtained the counterfeit bill. About the police officers involved with the abuse of force, that is already a done deal, they will be brought to justice. That is just a legal procedure. The videos show what happened, besides the several witnesses,

But, beyond all the current distraction caused by protesters, this is the primary investigation to be followed:

1)- Who is behind that counterfeit bill and how many of those bills are running in Minneapolis? Is this just an amateur job or is a huge mafia behind the fake bill?

2)- If it is a mafia behind the counterfeit bill, it might be possible this mafia might be behind the protests in order to distract the attention. The priority here is to investigate at full time the origin of that counterfeit bill.

3)- Investigate why the black female Mayor of Washington DC has not presented yet her letter of resignation. She knew by the news, that protesters have been causing vandalism in other cities. The lack of leadership of this black female Mayor of Washington DC is a fault which allowed the burning, destruction and looting in the city.

President Trump is not the authority in charge for the protection of Washington DC. The part of the city with private business is not Federal land. The city land belongs to the municipality.

After her letter of resignation, the police chief of Washington DC must be fired by the replacement Mayor, because he also didn't coordinate a "state of alert" in the city, sending enough police officers as preventive measurement to stop any violence and vandalism in the city.

Both of them, the black female Mayor and the police chief failed miserably to protect the city, and both of them must be removed from their positions.

The media must concentrate in the current failure of the authorities of Washington DC, who must receive all the blame for the vandalism.

There is no excuse for the black female Mayor and her police chief to justify their lack of coordination and leadership, They could easily ask for help to the police of Maryland and Virginia States in order to be present at the time of the street demonstrations.

The lack of leadership of several mayors of many cities will cause the National Guard and the Feds to intervene. It is unacceptable all this looting in the name of the death of a criminal (Floyd) in hands of police abusing their power. We can't be under the rule of corrupt police officers, but we can't live under the rule of vandalism either.

Both of them must pay hard for what they did in these recent days.

The media has dedicated to publish whatever can make the current administration to look as weak, however the only ones showing weak authority are the Mayors and Governors, because containing the protesters is their job, and such is not the president responsibility.

Thanks God president Trump is taking the initiative of helping the weak Mayors and Governors to contain the current street violence. I have no more to say but Thank you Mr. president, I support you in your initiative to stop the current chaos.

 

[Pete7469]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

 

[Coyote]

Was that in the OP or the article? If so, please show it to me.

I asked, because that seemed to be what you were asserting.

The fact is, leftist bed wetters have been destroying shit across the country. There is nothing false about that statement. Some twittertwat posting a picture has nothing to do with the fact most of the media is BULLSHIT. I'm not singling any of it out. It's ALL DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE OPINIONS.

Pretending as if NPR, PBS, CBS, NBS or CNNBS is fully credible makes you look like just as big a retard as those who hang on every word Hannity speaks and act as if he has no agenda.

.

I am asserting what is in the OP.

If any of that is wrong (per your claim of NPR credibility) - point it out.

On sources and media - there those that are good, better, average, and largely laughable. I rate NPR as good. CNN average. Hannity is opinion - talk show.

Edited to add - we all have to trust sources to some degree because for the most part we don't have first hand info.

 

[iceberg]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

There's your Russian interference. They know Trump is a threat to them so they are pulling out the stops to try and make him lose the election.

Trump is no threat to Russia, from day one when he tried removing sanctions. He's done next to nothing to combat their disinformation, attempts at interfering in elections, etc.

Take a look at it this way, china, russia, iran, all of the big threats to the US are lead by dictators.

The US has experienced a form of soft dictatorship in that the ruling elite controlled all aspects of our political existence.

Then Trump came along and flipped over their apple cart and the political class went batshit crazy as they watched him start to dismantle their years of work setting themselves up to be invincible.

Oh really? Trump is on record openly admiring some pretty abhorrent dictators. He certainly hasn't upset Putin's hold, nor has he upset Rocket Boy's grip, he openly admires Dutarte, he supports the increasingly authoritarian rightwing systems in former Soviet Bloc nations....

If you truly believe in the Republic, then you should support Trump.

If, on the other hand, you want fascism, then fight against the Republic.

I support neither Trump nor Fascism and I see Trump as an incompetent, self-interested tool who can be bought by flattery and...likely other things as well. My opinion.

I DO however see the internet and social media as our newest platform for war. It's no longer conventional warfare - it's disinformation.

Regardless of how we feel about Trump, don't you think we should be concerned about this?

You don't believe anything Trump says or does that I have ever seen.

Given that, how could he fight it in a manner you'd approve of?

 

[westwall]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

There's your Russian interference. They know Trump is a threat to them so they are pulling out the stops to try and make him lose the election.

Trump is no threat to Russia, from day one when he tried removing sanctions. He's done next to nothing to combat their disinformation, attempts at interfering in elections, etc.

Take a look at it this way, china, russia, iran, all of the big threats to the US are lead by dictators.

The US has experienced a form of soft dictatorship in that the ruling elite controlled all aspects of our political existence.

Then Trump came along and flipped over their apple cart and the political class went batshit crazy as they watched him start to dismantle their years of work setting themselves up to be invincible.

Oh really? Trump is on record openly admiring some pretty abhorrent dictators. He certainly hasn't upset Putin's hold, nor has he upset Rocket Boy's grip, he openly admires Dutarte, he supports the increasingly authoritarian rightwing systems in former Soviet Bloc nations....

If you truly believe in the Republic, then you should support Trump.

If, on the other hand, you want fascism, then fight against the Republic.

I support neither Trump nor Fascism and I see Trump as an incompetent, self-interested tool who can be bought by flattery and...likely other things as well. My opinion.

I DO however see the internet and social media as our newest platform for war. It's no longer conventional warfare - it's disinformation.

Regardless of how we feel about Trump, don't you think we should be concerned about this?

Facts in hand show you to be quite wrong. When pootin invaded Crimea obummer waved his hands and said things but ultimately did nothing meaningful.

Trump, on the other hand has allowed Ukraine to buy lethal weapons. Far different from obummers blankets.

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

There's your Russian interference. They know Trump is a threat to them so they are pulling out the stops to try and make him lose the election.

Trump is no threat to Russia, from day one when he tried removing sanctions. He's done next to nothing to combat their disinformation, attempts at interfering in elections, etc.

Take a look at it this way, china, russia, iran, all of the big threats to the US are lead by dictators.

The US has experienced a form of soft dictatorship in that the ruling elite controlled all aspects of our political existence.

Then Trump came along and flipped over their apple cart and the political class went batshit crazy as they watched him start to dismantle their years of work setting themselves up to be invincible.

Oh really? Trump is on record openly admiring some pretty abhorrent dictators. He certainly hasn't upset Putin's hold, nor has he upset Rocket Boy's grip, he openly admires Dutarte, he supports the increasingly authoritarian rightwing systems in former Soviet Bloc nations....

If you truly believe in the Republic, then you should support Trump.

If, on the other hand, you want fascism, then fight against the Republic.

I support neither Trump nor Fascism and I see Trump as an incompetent, self-interested tool who can be bought by flattery and...likely other things as well. My opinion.

I DO however see the internet and social media as our newest platform for war. It's no longer conventional warfare - it's disinformation.

Regardless of how we feel about Trump, don't you think we should be concerned about this?

You don't believe anything Trump says or does that I have ever seen.

Given that, how could he fight it in a manner you'd approve of?

Start telling the truth, show some self discipline in disseminating lies and conspiracy theory.

When someone lies so often that what ever they say is regarded as suspect - what do you propose? It's not just me "believing" this - it's well documented. He lies, and then changes his story multiple times in as many days.

So - given that background, how would propose building trust in anything he says or actions he takes? Keep in mind - tweeting what he did "when looting starts, shooting starts" was not a good start. The fact that he is strongly politicizing this is also disturbing. It isn't and should not be a right/left issue and as president, I think his job should be drawing us TOGETHER in two ways: addressing the underlying issues (policing) and condemning looting without advocating over the top violence. As president - and representative of the Federal Government - he needs to be seen supporting the governors not ripping into them, as they try to quell the violence while allowing the free speech aspect of peaceful demonstrations. This is a difficult needle to thread from a president who truly has little knowledge of the constitution, or the separation of powers, or what is the federal prerogative and what is state's prerogative. He comes from a background - not as a CEO even - but as the owner of large multinational business' that are all privately owned, not publicly traded. He's king/emporor/decider for better or worse. His reality show the Apprentice perfectly sums up his transactional approach. That doesn't translate well into governance where power is divided among branches and states.

Given that - he has a tough row to hoe here. The first thing he could do, that would prick my ears, would be denounce what is truly fake - not denouncing unpleasant or critical news as "fake news" which he routinely does - but the real fakes like in this OP. He can STOP spreading fake news and disinformation (most recently exemplified in Scarborough). Do you think he is capable of that?

 

[Coyote]

How much of these protests and reactions is being driven by disinformation designed to foment violence and unrest?

'None Of This Is True': Protests Become Fertile Ground for Online Disinformation

A well-funded and elaborate social media disinformation campaign played out online Sunday night, experts say, showing how polarization creates situations where lies go viral.

www.npr.org

View attachment 344468

A fake story began circulating Sunday evening into Monday morning, which was then disputed by real journalists as well as a number of bots. Experts say the campaign may have been meant to make people question whether anything they see online is true.

The image would shock just about anyone: a fire so large that it seems to stretch halfway up the 550-foot-tall Washington Monument, and burning so bright that it dramatically illuminated the landmark.

Shocking, but fake.

The image was a screenshot from the fictional ABC show "Designated Survivor." But coming on the third day of raucous protests around the White House against police violence — which did include some fires that were intentionally set — it could have seemed like it was real.

The image quickly went viral on Twitter, not unlike a number of other rumors that spread during moments of uncertainty and chaos over the weekend, and which showed how the intense polarization of the current moment is fertile ground for online disinformation campaigns.

And there were claims spread under the #dcblackout hashtag that cell phones and other communication devices were blocked as part of a strategy to allow violent police reprisals to go unreported. That, too, was not true.

"Some of my videos and pics being posted by accounts saying they were last before a "#dcblackout" where streams and cells shut down. I didn't experience anything like that and — though I didn't try streaming — had no issue with phone as I tweeted and worked until 2:30 am at least," tweeted Yahoo! reporter Hunter Walker on Monday morning.

"Stop retweeting #dcblackout," added CBS reporter Christina Ruffini. "None of this is true. Eventually, even TV crews need to sleep, but ours and many others were out late into the night. Their phones worked. Live signal was strong. Many of these tweets are the same wording. Don't fall for whatever is happening here."

Experts say the #dcblackout hashtag seemed to be the work of a"well-funded" and organized internet campaign, and a successful one at that.

Many of the accounts promoting the #dcblackout claims had few followers themselves, indicating that they could have been created specifically for the purpose of spreading disinformation, said Alex Engler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has followed the use of social media and technology to spread propaganda.

"A lot of these accounts are pretty suspicious, especially the ones disseminating them at night. But there are very real people now promoting this. By 9 a.m. the fact that the origin of the story seems to be manufactured would already be obscured to you," he says.

"Even if a huge percentage of those real people are using that hashtag to say, 'hey, this isn't real' — it doesn't matter," Linvill said. Even if only 20% of people posting about it believe it, "20% of a million is still 200,000 people."

There's your Russian interference. They know Trump is a threat to them so they are pulling out the stops to try and make him lose the election.

Trump is no threat to Russia, from day one when he tried removing sanctions. He's done next to nothing to combat their disinformation, attempts at interfering in elections, etc.

Take a look at it this way, china, russia, iran, all of the big threats to the US are lead by dictators.

The US has experienced a form of soft dictatorship in that the ruling elite controlled all aspects of our political existence.

Then Trump came along and flipped over their apple cart and the political class went batshit crazy as they watched him start to dismantle their years of work setting themselves up to be invincible.

Oh really? Trump is on record openly admiring some pretty abhorrent dictators. He certainly hasn't upset Putin's hold, nor has he upset Rocket Boy's grip, he openly admires Dutarte, he supports the increasingly authoritarian rightwing systems in former Soviet Bloc nations....

If you truly believe in the Republic, then you should support Trump.

If, on the other hand, you want fascism, then fight against the Republic.

I support neither Trump nor Fascism and I see Trump as an incompetent, self-interested tool who can be bought by flattery and...likely other things as well. My opinion.

I DO however see the internet and social media as our newest platform for war. It's no longer conventional warfare - it's disinformation.

Regardless of how we feel about Trump, don't you think we should be concerned about this?

Facts in hand show you to be quite wrong. When pootin invaded Crimea obummer waved his hands and said things but ultimately did nothing meaningful.

Trump, on the other hand has allowed Ukraine to buy lethal weapons. Far different from obummers blankets.

Fair enough - up to a point. And, I will use your style of lingo to present my points.

Obama's approach to Russia was overly cautious (a flaw seen in much of his foreign policy) and underestimated Russia's intent and abilities.

The Drumpsterfire, on the other hand, held chaotic and conflicting policies in regard to Russia, and despite allowing Ukraine to purchase offensive weaponry, he also allowed Russia to fully succeed in sowing chaos and confusion in the US, and meddle in our electoral politics with little to no pushback.

Don’t rehabilitate Obama on Russia

We should not slip into collective amnesia over the Obama administration’s weak and underwhelming response to Russian aggression.

www.brookings.edu