None Of This Is True...#DCBlackOut

[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.

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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

 

[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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

 

[Pete7469]

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

Indeed... You post is complete Gorgun shit, by that I mean out of this galaxy sorts of bullshit...

The meat puppet faggot's approach was "overly cautious"?



Your moonbat messiah was a SERVANT of Putin. Can you make any more of a fool of yourself by asserting Trump is a problem? It was during the meat puppet faggot's regime that ISIS became a thing, and conquered vast swaths of land only to be effectively wiped out by Trump.

It was your meat puppet faggot and Candy Cowly that ridiculed that piece of shit Romney for asserting Russia was a threat at all.

How do people like you sleep at night spreading bullshit agitprop?

.

 

[OldLady]

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."

A lot of people here over the weekend were definitely buying into it. I don't know that anyone was deliberately lying, but the lies, exaggerations and misinformation were swallowed hook, line and sinker. It did its work. We all condemn the destruction and the looting, the fires, the chucking bricks at the police. But it had people screaming for blood, for shooting on sight, etc. etc.

It was worrisome.

Thank you for the article, Coyote. I knew there was a Set Your Hair On Fire campaign going on, but how do you prove it? Harder still, how do you stop people from buying it?

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

 

[Pete7469]

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

That's it... Run away after you Gorgon Shit agitprop thread was destroyed like a good little treasonous apparatchik.

 

[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.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

 

[Coyote]

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

That's it... Run away after you Gorgon Shit agitprop thread was destroyed like a good little treasonous apparatchik.

What are you talking about...or...are you incapable of addressing the points made? Seems like it...but hey, prove me wrong or, even better - prove the OP was wrong and that really was a fire in Washington. I'll wait.

 

[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?

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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

what was trump to do about russia putting fake ads on facebook and getting us riled up at each other? all someone has to do is post TRUMP DOES NOT SUCK and instant debates and hate starts.

should trump just make hate illegal?

 

[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."

A lot of people here over the weekend were definitely buying into it. I don't know that anyone was deliberately lying, but the lies, exaggerations and misinformation were swallowed hook, line and sinker. It did it's work. We all condemn the destruction and the looting, the fires, the chucking bricks at the police. But it had people screaming for blood, for shooting on sight, etc. etc.

It was worrisome.

Thank you for the article, Coyote. I knew there was a Set Your Hair On Fire campaign going on, but how do you prove it? Harder still, how do you stop people from buying it?

If there is a malign purpose behind it...that would be the desired outcome I suspect

But as to your question - I don't know. In part, it would take leadership and self discipline on the parts of our leaders to not promote it. The rest - I just don't know.

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

 

[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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

what was trump to do about russia putting fake ads on facebook and getting us riled up at each other? all someone has to do is post TRUMP DOES NOT SUCK and instant debates and hate starts.

should trump just make hate illegal?

Changes in that regard would require changes from these tech companies, changes through congress in how they are regulated, public education. As far as what Trump himself can do (and my OP wasn't even about Trump...go figure) - he can STOP spreading it. When something comes from the President - it's important. It isn't like something from you or I. You can't just disregard it - it's a public message, and his position invests with credibility whether earned or not. He can simply refuse to use his twitter as a means of spreading this stuff and granting legitimacy to it.

 

[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.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

 

[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?

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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

what was trump to do about russia putting fake ads on facebook and getting us riled up at each other? all someone has to do is post TRUMP DOES NOT SUCK and instant debates and hate starts.

should trump just make hate illegal?

Changes in that regard would require changes from these tech companies, changes through congress in how they are regulated, public education. As far as what Trump himself can do (and my OP wasn't even about Trump...go figure) - he can STOP spreading it. When something comes from the President - it's important. It isn't like something from you or I. You can't just disregard it - it's a public message, and his position invests with credibility whether earned or not. He can simply refuse to use his twitter as a means of spreading this stuff and granting legitimacy to it.

oh i understand. even agree - to a point. but trump is never going to be anything more than he already is. to keep getting mad at who he is seems to give him no room to do anything good at all.

as for the credibility inherent with the position. i would agree. but then twitter also has a lot of credibility due to their position -who makes them not "abuse" it?

i think we get so wrapped up in how much we like or don't like someone we allow that to make us determine if what they do is good or bad just based on that. makes zero technical sense but perfection human nature sense.

like both biden and trump wanting sect 230 eliminated so tech companies can't hide behind that to be unfair or the like. if both men want it and you support one and hate the other - what do we do in these all too rare "intersections" of how we want things done?

 

[iceberg]

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.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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."

Thank you for the post. Also, as a matter of record, the media story that Trump had rioters tear gassed so he could go to the church in D.C. is also false. The Park Police said they had no idea Trump was coming. They asked the rioters three times to leave as they were violating curfew, destroying property, and attacking law enforcement. They did not leave so the Park service took the action they did.

Completely fake news the media keeps repeating.


Key quote from the story: "But on Tuesday morning, Park Police sources told WTOP that this was not the case, arguing that the protesters were not all peaceful, that tear gas was not used, and that officers did not know of Trump’s visit to the house of worship. The outlet went on to report that the crowd was pushed back when officers were being hit with water bottles and that protesters had climbed onto the top of a structure at the north end of Lafayette Square that had been attacked and burned a day earlier.”

Park Police say DC protesters cleared because they attacked cops, not because of Trump church visit: report

Park Police reportedly say protesters near the White House were pushed back by riot police on Monday evening because they were attacking police officers, not because of a visit by President Trump to a nearby church that had been set alight the night before.

www.foxnews.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?

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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

what was trump to do about russia putting fake ads on facebook and getting us riled up at each other? all someone has to do is post TRUMP DOES NOT SUCK and instant debates and hate starts.

should trump just make hate illegal?

Changes in that regard would require changes from these tech companies, changes through congress in how they are regulated, public education. As far as what Trump himself can do (and my OP wasn't even about Trump...go figure) - he can STOP spreading it. When something comes from the President - it's important. It isn't like something from you or I. You can't just disregard it - it's a public message, and his position invests with credibility whether earned or not. He can simply refuse to use his twitter as a means of spreading this stuff and granting legitimacy to it.

oh i understand. even agree - to a point. but trump is never going to be anything more than he already is. to keep getting mad at who he is seems to give him no room to do anything good at all.

Well, imo, there is only so far one can go in a "that's who he is" argument before it becomes an excuse for bad behavior, especially when it's contributing to the problems. And, when it is contributing to the problems (and Scarborough is a good example because the intern's family are suing to stop the false claims) - then yes, it is hard to give him room to do any good. But - I specified what he COULD do to make a difference, there is room.

as for the credibility inherent with the position. i would agree. but then twitter also has a lot of credibility due to their position -who makes them not "abuse" it?

i think we get so wrapped up in how much we like or don't like someone we allow that to make us determine if what they do is good or bad just based on that. makes zero technical sense but perfection human nature sense.

like both biden and trump wanting sect 230 eliminated so tech companies can't hide behind that to be unfair or the like. if both men want it and you support one and hate the other - what do we do in these all too rare "intersections" of how we want things done?

I see a bit of a difference from you. Twitter's "credibility" (seems laughable to even use that term) is a direct product of it's users - it's granted by it's users, not any position. That's not the same as the leader of a nation. Their only claim, along with these other social media outlets is that they are a platform to promote "free speech" (yes, an arguable claim) - and they have been getting trounced, deservedly, for lack of any accountability over the past few years.

My argument with Trump and getting rid of section 230, aside from it being an EO, is that I do not think it address the real problem and that is this (again, imo) - what exactly IS Twitter, Facebook, et al? We do not currently have laws in effect, that address them - our laws are outdated. In one sense, they function as monopolies, effectively squashing competition while remaining largely unregulated - there is a lot of potential issues there. Trump needs to work with and pressure Congress to take this up. There is will (even though the reasons behind it differ) among both sides to do something. An EO should be reserved if they are unable to come up with effective legislation. This is Congress' job and it's over due. As far as Biden - I haven't thought one way or another on how he views getting rid of 230 - he's not really player right now, and, like with Trump - an EO is not an answer, it's a bandaide, albeit a pretty one.

 

[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.

You seriously rate CNN as "average", Coyote? LOL

Yes.

I suspect there sources you rate as good that, well, I would find laughable.

With all due respect, Coyote? If you attempt to claim that CNN is average when it come to trustworthiness then why would anyone take you seriously? CNN is what it is. They have a pronounced "slant" to their news...and that's being generous. Claiming otherwise borders on farce!

Having a "slant" or a "bias" does not mean not credible - it means it has a bias. You read it with that in mind. They all have some form of bias. Not credible in my view is a source that repeatedly provably false material, does not correct errors, and uses certain types of red flag language.

And, I would ask the same of you - why would anyone take any source of yours as "credible"?

opinions and editorials have slants and biases and are, or were, clearly marked. the fact that our regular news has evolved into editorials is quite telling in why no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. we're following opinions of the writers who are too lazy to get the facts like they should.

The news sources I tend to like offer a pretty clear distinction between editorial and opinion, and news. I really do not like the blurring of opinion and news, or for that matter, entertainment and news. Remember the old Walter Conkrite days?

 

[morel.calvet]

Oh yeah! This is a cool event! I like it! So keep our great genius!

 

[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?

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

Excuse me Coyote but it was OBUMMER who allowed pootin to interfere in our elections. He was warned MONTHS before the election that russia was interfering and he told the FBI to do nothing.

Yet again, real facts show you to be wrong.

On the other hand, real facts show that he warned the Trump administration. And they did nothing either. In fairness - it was a damned if you do (election interference by a president!!!!) and damned if you don't (election interference by Russia!!!!) - but Trump has not acted on any of it.

This is going off topic though, so I'll shut up about it

what was trump to do about russia putting fake ads on facebook and getting us riled up at each other? all someone has to do is post TRUMP DOES NOT SUCK and instant debates and hate starts.

should trump just make hate illegal?

Changes in that regard would require changes from these tech companies, changes through congress in how they are regulated, public education. As far as what Trump himself can do (and my OP wasn't even about Trump...go figure) - he can STOP spreading it. When something comes from the President - it's important. It isn't like something from you or I. You can't just disregard it - it's a public message, and his position invests with credibility whether earned or not. He can simply refuse to use his twitter as a means of spreading this stuff and granting legitimacy to it.

oh i understand. even agree - to a point. but trump is never going to be anything more than he already is. to keep getting mad at who he is seems to give him no room to do anything good at all.

Well, imo, there is only so far one can go in a "that's who he is" argument before it becomes an excuse for bad behavior, especially when it's contributing to the problems. And, when it is contributing to the problems (and Scarborough is a good example because the intern's family are suing to stop the false claims) - then yes, it is hard to give him room to do any good. But - I specified what he COULD do to make a difference, there is room.

as for the credibility inherent with the position. i would agree. but then twitter also has a lot of credibility due to their position -who makes them not "abuse" it?

i think we get so wrapped up in how much we like or don't like someone we allow that to make us determine if what they do is good or bad just based on that. makes zero technical sense but perfection human nature sense.

like both biden and trump wanting sect 230 eliminated so tech companies can't hide behind that to be unfair or the like. if both men want it and you support one and hate the other - what do we do in these all too rare "intersections" of how we want things done?

I see a bit of a difference from you. Twitter's "credibility" (seems laughable to even use that term) is a direct product of it's users - it's granted by it's users, not any position. That's not the same as the leader of a nation. Their only claim, along with these other social media outlets is that they are a platform to promote "free speech" (yes, an arguable claim) - and they have been getting trounced, deservedly, for lack of any accountability over the past few years.

My argument with Trump and getting rid of section 230, aside from it being an EO, is that I do not think it address the real problem and that is this (again, imo) - what exactly IS Twitter, Facebook, et al? We do not currently have laws in effect, that address them - our laws are outdated. In one sense, they function as monopolies, effectively squashing competition while remaining largely unregulated - there is a lot of potential issues there. Trump needs to work with and pressure Congress to take this up. There is will (even though the reasons behind it differ) among both sides to do something. An EO should be reserved if they are unable to come up with effective legislation. This is Congress' job and it's over due. As far as Biden - I haven't thought one way or another on how he views getting rid of 230 - he's not really player right now, and, like with Trump - an EO is not an answer, it's a bandaide, albeit a pretty one.

well people take who he is and make it so much more *because* of who is he. i could counter with who's exhibiting the bad behavior? trump or are people simply getting so mad at him nothing he does is right, even if they would have done what he did on their own, given the chance.

the hatred people have for him usually means he won't be right regardless of what he does.

i 100% agree with the EO. i didn't like how obama used it and i hate how trump is using it. if congress and our processes are too cumbersome to work through THEN FIX THEM. don't go around them and in the end nullify the very purpose of separation of powers.

i agree they're not really a "platform" - most people i think do but they're still judged that way. platform carries specifics can's and can'ts that go with it and that's how they've been operating. but this guideline if you will was born with the 28.8 modem was king and 56k is another year away. it simply doesn't apply to much of anything today.

so, if i read you correctly i think we agree. we need to figure out where social media goes and fits in the world and establish their rules of engagement and this should be done by our collective government. NOT an EO.

i was just surprised biden wanted it gone too mostly for the very same reasons in what i've read. but i was glad to hear it and i found something he and i agree on regardless of how i feel about him.

appreciate the convo.