Reddit is going to use this "Elimination of Russian troll accounts" as a way of shadowbanning/deleting any accounts that show dissent to the popular opinion.
First they came for Reddit accounts that overtly showed usage tied to robotic automation, then they came for something something something, step 3: ???, then there was no !RemindMe
No one said their system is infallible and will immediately catch all the accounts. You start with the worst offenders, then work you way down to less obvious accounts.
Not that I don't believe you - lots of people are using robot automation for these purposes - but your theory would be alot more solid if you specifically cited users who violate this.
That is why so many of the T_D bots got banned, because people took the time to document their automation beyond a reasonable doubt.
actually it was supposed to be a commentary on post war england. the original title was 1948. orwell's publisher made him change it.
people forget that orwell was an informant. he spied on his fellow writers and reported them to britain's version of HUAC. he knew what he was talking about...firsthand...
in one sense, it is good that it was shifted to the future, people are more receptive to warnings, than admonitions, but it also meant that people have kidded themselves into thinking 1984 was always on the horizen, when it was here all along, for going on 70 years. the lunancy of people living through HUAC and the red scare and not realizing 1984 was already real.
You think spez is doing this all himself? They wacked his co-founder of course he is gonna fall in line after that. Who else is obsessed with media control?
You don't think the government has any control over Reddit? I mean, they control Google and Facebook to some degree. Look what the government did to the other creator of Reddit when he wouldn't jump when they said jump.
The first amendment isn't nonsense. Without the US tax payers money building the infrastructure for the Internet to exist in the first place these "public forums" wouldn't exist. If you're piggybacking off of the US government you should be bound to its laws like every other entity. If bakers have to cook cakes for whiney gays then reddit should have to put up with stupid Trump supporters. How would you feel if I banned all your stupid opinions on every platform. How would you feel if you couldn't speak your mind on twitter,facebook,reddit,youtube, etc? How would you feel If you couldn't even host your own website to display your opinions without a bunch of neurotic fucks crying until you get shut down. This shut down of public discourse is what leads to divides which end in violence. People you can't talk to are enemies.
Except sexual orientation is a federally protected class, being a Russian spam bot, and/of having differing political views is not (although political orientation is protected in some states). Basically, following your line of thinking here, Reddit isn't actually doing anything wrong in terms of the law.
We will see. There is currently a case involving twitter and that Amren guy that looks promising. It's in my opinion that public forums such as these should have to adhere to our constitutional rights. As for Russian bots that's different. I don't believe they should have the right to censor content that they disagree with. These leftists would freak out if the shoe was on the other foot and they were being censored in public forums.
I'm not disagreeing with your point about liberals freaking out if it it was on the other foot, but I do disagree that you believe they don't have a right to censor their content. It's a private forum, and freedom of speech protects you from prosecution from the government, not from being censored on a private companies website. I think you have a very broad interpretation of the first amendment, and it's not an uncommon interpretation either.
In its current status it might be true. Things can change especially when it comes to interpretation of law and how it is worded. In the past we have had to pass laws to regulate monopolies in order to create a fairer market. When our marketplace of ideas and public discourse gets put into the hands of a nepotistic bunch whom seek to monopolize it for their narrow range of political interests I don't see why there couldn't be changes made. Years ago sexual orientation might not have been protected. Today it is. Today free speech on Internet might not be protected but with a world where public life is increasingly being woven with the Internet I think things may change. Or at least be spoken about to see where we are on the issue.
I'm not disagreeing that it could or shouldn't be changed. I'm stating that the comparisons to "whiny gays having a cake baked" isn't a very straightforward comparison as this commenter makes it seem. Personally, I'm for communities self-regulating what is and isn't put on their website, but I'm sure I'm the minority here, and that's fine.
I think that is a little alarmist. Granted, we are on conspiracy, but a private company censoring what sort of content it has does not equal a big brother situation. Reddit is not the only place on the internet.
What market cap would reddit need for you to consider it a violating free speech?
Are you that unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes? Are you unable to see how badly this ends when people are left in their own echo chambers? Set aside your current understanding of the law, are you really unable to see how this might be wrong?
Violating free speech would be the government arresting you for saying "russia is great lol", not for reddit for deleting low-effort content like "russia is great lol".
It isn't a violation of free speech to keep certain rhetoric out of your community, as much as you may think it is wrong, it doesn't make a first amendment violation. You cannot come into my house and say "russia is great lol" if I do not want you to come to my house and say that. (granted, I would probably just laugh and invite you in if you are my friend)
Right, not limiting free speech, just "keeping" certain rhetoric out of your community. That is some Orwellian wordplay going on.
What you are proposing sets a terrible precedent, and the window of accepted speech will only get smaller. But if you don't have much worth saying you have nothing to worry about, so keep doing you man.
Free speech is protection from the government arresting you for saying whatever you wany, not from a community deciding it doesn't want Russian bots spamming them.
The comparisons to 1984 are extremely overblown and exaggerated, you should be happy that we don't actually live in an orwellian society
And discussion forum website formats are not the only form of website allowed on the Internet. Reddit could instead choose to offer no-comment viewing of artwork, or puzzle games, or any other form of website that doesn't mislead people into thinking it is offering a venue for people to speak openly.
Reddit isn't actually doing anything wrong in terms of the law.
The law isn't the only...or even the primary... basis for evaluating wrongdoing. Censorship is morally wrong regardless of whether it is done by a government or a non-government entity because it violates a fundamental human right of free speech. Owning a website doesn't miraculously transform that wrong into right. At the core of the problem is deception. They infer that anyone is free to set up an account and express their views and no mention is made at the time of account creation that the website owners intend to prohibit specific viewpoints. Thus, when a person takes time to establish an account after having been mislead that their free expression would be allowed, when that turns out to not be true, then the website has defrauded them of the time which that user invested in establishing the account, reading, and replying. In short, since the website's ad revenue is based upon viewership, they are falsely luring in people to increase their ad revenues, but doing so with the intention of actually not letting the user speak freely.
They infer that anyone is free to set up an account and express their views and no mention is made at the time of account creation that the website owners intend to prohibit specific viewpoints.
Is that so? I don't think the ToS that you agreed to would think so. (psst it's one of the fist things)
Without advance notice and at any time, we may, for violations of this agreement or for any other reason we choose: (1) suspend your access to reddit, (2) suspend or terminate Your Account or reddit gold membership, and/or (3) remove any of your User Content from reddit.
"Without advance notice and at any time, we may, for violations of this agreement or for any other reason we choose: ...... (3) remove any of your User Content from reddit."
I don't know what else you need bub, it literally says it right there, any reason we choose, says they can remove anything for any reason. I don't care how ambiguous or unfair you think that part of the ToS is, the point is they can remove your post for whatever reason they want, and they never mislead you about that fact. You have no argument here. I am not going to sit here and argue about the semantics of their ToS, if you feel you cannot adhere to them or come to terms with them, then you should not use Reddit (it also says that in the ToS, which I suspect you did not read until now)
And I suspect that you now realize that the ToS is exactly as ambiguous...and thus misleading...as I originally said.
As for not using Reddit...I have a better idea...they can fix it or get it off my Internet. As a US taxpayer that funded the development of the Internet through DARPA...yes, its my Internet....and as such they have no right to undermine free speech. Sorry if that perturbs your Socialist beliefs.
I personally don't find it ambiguous at all; I stated that you may find the post ambiguous or unfair. It states that they can remove your post for any reason, what is misleading about that?
"muh internet" lol, do you seriously think that solely you own the internet. Our tax dollars, not just your tax dollars funded it, so that makes it our internet.. which you probably wont like to hear since that's a pretty socialist idea. Sharing something as a public service that all of our tax dollars funded.
Seriously, the fact that you think it is your internet and not our internet, as in anyone can do what they want with it, and the fact that you think a company has to bend to your will because you do not like their terms of service that you agreed to when you made your account whilst spouting I have some sort of socialist agenda that I am pushing is ironic and ridiculous to the point that I actually laughed out loud. The irony here is that, you believe I'm spouting socialist nonsense, when in reality this line of thinking (that a company can do what it wants with it's services free from government regulation) is more libertarian if anything.
Get a grip on reality dude, I'm not sure how it's undermining your free speech. A company enforcing their ToS that you agreed to is somehow undermining your free speech rights. I just have to go ahead and assume that you don't even know what the 1st amendment actually covers, so I don't think I should engage in this pointless argument anymore until you get a grip on reality and learn what it is that you are actually arguing.
ridiculous to the point that I actually laughed out loud.
LOL Glad to make your day more fun.
Ok so let me straighten you out on my Internet. Of course I don't own it all because I don't pay all the US taxes and that would just be silly. I see it more as a time-share sort of arrangement...whatever part I'm using is mine at the moment.
At this point, I hope you just give up and admit I'm right because I've trolled this absurdity about as far as I can take it.
The difference is every entity on the planet is not trying to overthrow the democratic process by eliminating the oppositions ability to speak and form ideas. The truck driving unions are not forming up to kick people off the internet and insure they don't have wrong think.
Reddit is one branch in an overall tree of globalism. Youtube is, reddit is, google is, facebook is, you are being willfully ignorant if you are ignoring the over all theme going on, which is censorship across the board.
lol you guys are so fucking retarded. None of those companies have done anything extreme or violated anyone's free speech. The reason they generally have a left-leaning bias is because their audience is generally left-leaning, and they have advertisers that want to target that audience. Your dumbass views aren't being censored they're just unpopular outside your echo chambers.
Clearly not, as they are banning individuals with right leaning viewpoints, so the audience isn't 100% leftists.
Furthermore organization and collaboration with other groups such as the ADL to make a blanketed campaign of censorship IS a violation of free speech.
The advertisers wanted to advertise BEFORE this massive censorship campaign, advertisers want to reach the broadest audience possible, so then pray tell why an advertiser would want to limit itself from ANY group, left or right?
Perhaps your stupid fucking views are the issue, and perhaps you are retarded if you don't see this.
There is not one good example of someone being banned without a good cause. The ONLY halfway legitimate example is when Twitter made a "mistake" and then corrected it.
Everything else is crybaby tears from angry white incel boys. Every piece of "evidence" you think you have is just a list of a bunch of misinterpretations of facts, wrong assumptions, and leaps of faith disguised as logic.
tens of thousands of accounts banned from twitter and reddit disagree with that assertion.
"good cause" is a fucking meaningless term, what is good cause to a hyper sensitive twat is not good cause to the average person. Someone just saying something you dislike is not cause for banning.
If I tell the nazi to stop shouting death to Jews and leave my shop am I ‘trying to overthrow the democratic process’. No, I am not. So stop speaking fucking nonsense.
If you tell a nazi to stop shouting death to jews and leave your shop that is fine, when you start collaborating with every group in the city to make sure the nazi starves to death because you dislike his opinion, even when he hasn't shouted death to anything, then you are using a lynch mob to push your political agenda, just like reddit.
I can’t name them because I have zero interest in going anywhere near them. I don’t need to name them because I have the most basic understanding of the internet and how it works and know that it is simple as creating a new place. The land isn’t limited here. There are no regulations stopping these sites.
It is clear you have absolutely no idea how any of this works.
I swear no one in this sub has ever read 1984, they just cite it every time something happens that they don't like.
Can you explain to me what the parallel is in 1984 to a private company banning accounts, which are used to sow confusion among the electorate? I've recently read the book, for at least the third time, and I don't see it.
We are at war with Russia. We have always been at war with Russia. If you say anything against the party you are working with Russia and will be removed from society. Ignorance is strength.
So, to be clear, in 1984 they would switch who they were at war with and then they would force everyone to say that we have always been at war with them, and they would go back and edit all of the information to cleanse or add information that would support this theory.
So are we suggesting that Russia isn't an adversary? Or that Russia just recently became an adversary and we have gone back in time and made up the cold war and the tensions that have existed since the fall of the USSR? That's amazing because I remember my sister went to Germany and was lucky enough to be there during the fall of the Berlin wall, and was able to take some chunks off of it. Hell, my family even has some of these chunks. It's amazing how well they edited history because they even put these rocks in my parent's and sister's house. /s
I honestly don't see how reddit banning some russian troll accounts is anything like the "we have always been at war" claim from 1984.
First, the top level comment makes no allusion to this. They simply state that what they are doing is reminiscent of 1984. There is no reason to believe they mean anything but what they actually claim they are doing.
Second, care to show any proof of this claim? I see plenty of people, right here in this thread, going against the narrative, and they are still here. Why didn't they get them, too?
Yes it does, you say you see no reason to be upset that "Russian trolls" are being banned, when in reality they are just a boogeyman. It was shown that they did what, buy some political ads?? Made a couple Facebook groups or something?? It was a drop in the pond.
Reddit has censored TD from appearing on the front page and changed vote weights, conservatives are being banned from twitter and youtube and having their videos demonetized in mass under the guise of "hate speech" when in reality they are just telling people the truth.
I didn't say there was no reason to be upset, I questioned how it has anything to do with 1984.
You can argue that it wasn't effective, I'm not sure I agree, considering the claim is that they basically did their best to amplify spun talking points and fake news. But that is much harder to quantify. I'm still trying to figure out how this has anything to do with 1984.
the relation to 1984 is the attempted censorship going on right now under the cover of Russian trolls and hate speech. it's to control the narrative and silence opposition
Just because it doesn't have to do with the government doesn't mean you cannot allude to 1984. I think he's comparing the silencing of dissenting opinions of the party.
What he's saying is that calling something 1984 like because it's censorship is a complete misunderstanding of 1984 that does not go beyond the very surface. They deeper significance of 1984 is not about censorship, but the obliteration of the notion of truth. Which this has nothing to do with.
is that what i said? No i said that they are a drop in the pond being made up to be some huge thing when in reality it was insignificant, they bought ads for both sides, they are being used as an excuse for a lost election.
you obviously havent been paying attention to anything if you don't think google is censoring their search resuilts, you may be in the wrong sub bud.
As i said in another reply, Google has it's own shady things in play, yes some of them more than likely controlling info as they are primarily a large data company. However, saying I don't belong in a sub for sharing a belief counter to yours, especially in a sub about open discussion, is a bit much.
The propaganda issue is a rather large thing despite you wanting to believe otherwise. Yes, said trolls spread messages on both sides of our political system. You seem to want to make this a right vs left situation. It's moreover Americans vs foreign influence. Additionally, there are facilities where people make comparable salaries to what we Americans make where people create content for social media and online publications. Don't think that much resource would be wasted on something that doesn't matter.
I'm not making it a right versus left thing, i simply pointed out they bought ads for both sides and it was an insignificant amount, even compared to other foreign influence that's a much bigger problem, like for example China who nearly owns all of Hollywood now. It's only a big deal now because Hillary lost and they needed an excuse to why the spied on the Trump campaign so they rolled out this psyop on the American people.
All i claimed is google censors it's results to push liberal news and tried to make it sound like i was crazy or something. It's extremely easy to see and pretty amazing that someone who i guess follows real conspiracies would deny it
So you say it's not a right vs left thing but then go right into why it's right vs left. And surveillance into Trump was because of who Trump decided to do business with. Not like his associates were under watch before his run for President or anything.
So how is Google just pushing liberal news then? I can agree to censoring their results to an extent. However, why does Google still allow one to search for alt right sites and material while also supposedly censoring said material? You're making Google into the same construct you put media in that is against your bias it seems.
No, I went into why it was insignificant for either side given they bought ads etc. for both sides, did you read what i said??
please go to google right now and click on the news button. it will be page after page of liberal drivel with one or two fox news articles sprinkled in and nothing else. it's like that with any news related searches as well
Can you better define liberal drivel? It seems from your comment anything but Fox News is liberal, something granted I'd expect from a TD poster but still...
Insignificant for either side but with a heavy slant towards the right? I'm kinda thinking you are putting commentary on actual news on par with commentary on opinion and propaganda. Can you give an example of said trolls on the left that equate to what we have on the right?
i don't follow fox news at all so i don't know what you're trying to say by that, my point was they sprinkle one or two fox news articles in as their conservative sources and that's usually it. News that they themselves have branded "fake news" or alt-right" or whatever is nowhere to be found 95% of the time, or it's removed as a top result or suggested video if it get's too much attention.
The best example of trolls on the left are Correct The Record (aka shareblue) that literally took over r/politics and shilled on internet boards non stop and still do.
So you throw Fox as the example but don't watch said network. What do you label as alt right? I see WSJ and other right leaning publications when i look through news via Google. And if we take your word with merit, so a private company that shares aggregated news has a bias?
So we are equating shareblue to trolls? How are they trolling aside from posting left leaning articles? And where is said evidence? I definitely see them as a left leaning publication bit it seems, at least to me, you are labeling blogs as trolling.
they are a private company with a defacto monopoly on internet searches, along with youtube and Facebook in their respective categories. you really think companies that hold as much power as they do over the internet should be allowed to censor one side according to their own authority? I look at whatever sources I can find, what comes to mind for the "alt-right" labeled stuff i sites like breitbart, infowars, and conservative youtubers, radio shows. MSM claims the majority of these are racist nazis, but when you watch them or look at their sites there is absolutely nothing that suggests that
Yes shareblue is trolls, their handbook was leaked online, I'll try to track it down. It went into detail on how to slide discussion on online forums, push their narrative and multitude of other techniques. It was rebranded after they were exposed from CTR to shareblue
That claim on the majority being racist nazis is a bit over stretching, agreed. However, it's not entirely wrong as said group seems to favor those mentioned alt right sites. The alt sites are more a safe space for said racists.
"Private" companies can do what they want, here "private" being non-governmental. It's not on them for users to get a balanced news diet.
I wouldn't put shareblue in the same bucket as trolly alt right sites. Said handbook you are referencing is a response to the unbalanced information situation that existed and still exists. It more or less states that shareblue will act as anti-Trump in the sense of fighting against misinformation spread by said administration. For your view, I can see how they are the enemy as you are a regular on TD. However, it's not quite as radical as what it is in response to.
And hold on, sorry for the second comment. But, you seem to be claiming that Mueller is a conspiracy? That charges brought against Trump's "best people" are what, fake?
you tell me, were they indicted for "Russian meddling and collusion" which was the whole point of the investigation? or simple process crimes that have nothing to do with that or Trump himself.
Pretty sure conspiracy against the US is in the list of charges. So yea, in a sense as that would be said charge for said collusion.
And so hold on, now you switch from the surveillance was a conspiracy to it happened but said crimes weren't connected. Not connected as in Trump didn't vet and hire said people to work for his campaign and presidency?
I'm not switching to anything, I'm answering what you're asking me.
Like I said there is no charge of Russian meddling and collusion to influence the election, and what has been charged is not connected to Trump. I don't know about the vetting or whatever that's separate issue, the point is the supposed crimes are not related to what the special counsel was created to investigate, they are process crimes
So conspiring against the US is a process crime? And clearly Trump hiring them, which has to be done with vetting, has nothing to do with how he operates or his campaign because staff isn't important. Clearly hiring criminals for key positions means you yourself are innocent.
For what you are asking about specifically, give it some time. The investigation isn't over yet and time will tell.
who was charged for that and what does it entail? forgive me if I missed that I'm not sure of the one you're talking about.
what does people hiding crimes they committed have to do with Trump? you think he can just read their minds and find everything they've ever done? sometimes mistakes are made, let them serve their time if they did it, but it's disingenuous to try to put that on Trump. There have been criminals working in every administration that I've been alive so it's not like this is something new.
So Flynn, Page, Manafort, all being hired by Trump to work for our country with one being a national security advisor, and also getting jammed up with actual charges, has nothing to do with Trump? So if a manager hires bad employees whole knowing said employees' history means the manager isn't responsible?
?? you realize the Flynn thing happened AFTER he was picked as NSA while Trump was Pres. Elect right? The entire deal is he didn't explain exactly what he said on a phone call to FBI agent Strzk (yes the corrupt as fuck one with texts about creating insurance policies and shit. same guy).
Again I ask, which one is charged with conspiring against the US? is it something new or did I miss it?
page and manafort I don't know much about, but wasn't Manafort a paperwork crime? like he didn't file something by a certain time?
So if you unknowingly hired a person that killed someone without you knowing, is it then your fault when he get's charged lol.
You seem to be missing my point that none of that has to do with Russian collusion and election meddling which was the entire point in the first place.
Clearly all of Flynn's sketchy doings didn't stretch before Trump picked him. Not like Obama's admin gave advice to not hire the guy as he as previously fired.
Page plead guilty to a count of conspiracy against the US. I believe there were some others named but that is the one that comes to mind. Same dude who has FISA surveillance renewed on him for what like 2 years before he was hired by Trump. Manafort got caught up in paperwork initially but I think he has other charges on him now.
In this case I'm fairly certain said manager knew about his employee's skeletons but still hired him anyways.
Pretty sure that whole conspiracy against the US is the Russian meddling charge you keep asking for. And as I said earlier, gotta wait til the end of the investigation before claiming no charges exist.
Ah yes, I forgot that Google only works for the betterment of mankind and totally doesn't have any ulterior motives whatsoever.
They recently just dropped the motto of "Don't be evil."
Google and Reddit both profit from mass surveillance, and both sides sell metric fuck-tons of user data for profit. Not sure where you're going with this.
They don't have to be buddy buddy, they both profit from the mass surveillance so it makes sense both would seek it in whichever way possible.
I'm sure Russia has internet trolls, as I'm sure every other country meddles in every other country's business. Welcome to geopolitics. Russia's influence seems to be incredibly overblown. I'd be incredibly surprised if China didn't have a similar influence, as well as many of our allies. Everyone has a stake in the U.S election, they'd be stupid to not try and interfere. We're just using Russia as the current boogeyman as the middle east has been largely pacified and we always need an enemy.
I agree we always need a scapegoat, at least that's how our current America seems to be. Russia definitely fits the bill as they have been a longtime guest on the sitcom that is America. However, from what has been gathered from not just US intelligence but from the international scene, Russia has been on the cyber game hard as of late and we, as in the US, seemed to have just ignored it until it became an issue. I think our country "needing" another boogeyman, a trend seen coming from the right as an observation, fell into a lap of convenience.
So has China, and every other major power in the world. Russia was the one we went with because we have a history of being in conflict with them. If we really dug, I'd be surprised if there was a single major power not found to be interfering with our election. Lord knows at least Israel, China, Russia, and parts of (if not all) of the EU were. I'd be incredibly surprised to find otherwise.
It's beneficial for everyone else in the world to blame Russia as everyone wants to influence the U.S but no one wants to deal with a pissed off U.S.
I get the blanket of everyone wants to interfere with the US. However, as I said earlier, Russia is the country that is currently dominating that space. And Russia is the one country we still have a wealth of trade deals on hold with because of sanctions and our foreign policy.
Ah yes, I forgot that Google only works for the betterment of mankind and totally doesn't have any ulterior motives whatsoever.
Hell of a lot better than conservatives. Tell me, who caused the last 5 recessions? Who started the Iraq war on false pretenses? Who passed the Patriot Act? Who ended Net Neutrality? Who is trying to end every banking regulation right now?
You guys have a track record of fucking everything up with basically no wins under your belt in a generation.
Russia fucked with our election, there's proof. Everything consevatives have done since the 80s is a failure and you know it.
Good to know that you're smarter than every major economist who can't agree on this, or even come close to an underlying reason. Obama, a democrat, was the first president in history to fail to reach an annual 3% GDP growth.
Who started the Iraq war on false pretenses?
Both sides, Including Her Majesty Hillary Clinton.
The internet was fine before 2015, and it's fine right now. Glad to see you parroting every possible sharia blue talking point, though.
This was fun. I really enjoyed how you moved the goalposts completely away from what was being discussed. I'm glad you now admit that Google has plenty of motivation to push for mass surveillance.
You are incredibly blinded. Democrats aren't peaceful little doves. They vote against things when it looks good for them, not out of principle (as can be seen with the Patriot act). You need to realize that all politicians, except for a very select few, are out for their own good. Not yours. Not mine. Daddy government will always care for itself first which is why I prefer to limit its power.
I see TD demonized all the time on various subs. How it's full of hate speech, disgusting people, etc etc. I saw you reference it just now, so I finally decided to click.
It's not exactly what I was led to believe. There's a couple of people with strong language, a few people that probably need to get out more, but that's about it. Hell, I found out that NK says it will consider getting rid of nukes and that Rand Paul is looking to finally have the Fed audited. I haven't seen those bits of news on any other sub.
As someone who doesn't subscribe to ether party, I found this quite interesting.
Man I'm glad you took the time to look yourself. it is definitely a circlejerk for Trump nonstop, which is a nice break from the majority of reddit, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he does or that is there. But it's nothing like those people would have you believe, it's the same people that claim were all white supremacist Nazis for supporting Trump so ya... lol.
You know what's funny? I heard about both those things listening to NPR, which is actively demonized on T_D. You know what I don't hear on NPR? That we need to euthanize the right, that any political party is mentally challenged, or that talking about race issues is somehow a Jewish plot.
Eh, I can hear NPR's bias. They used to not be that way. I read Axios every other day, as that's the most consistent site I have found to date. CNN, Fox, all of those jokers, I'm done.
I have't seen the other stuff, but again, today is the only day I have ever gone into TD (I guess it's T_D?).
I hope when he turns 18 they find dirt on this fuckboy as he's obviously involved with the globalist agenda in some form or fashion, and by 19 is swinging from the sedition tree.
This is from the first 3 pages of againsthatesubreddits. So while some of these might be deleted they we're up long enough to get crossposted to another website. Granted some are only a few upvotes there's still tons of examples.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I see. I thought there was something wrong with the website. There is a ton of crossover between conspiracy and Donald and they both have people who regularly post dirty things like this. Sometimes they are up for hours even after being reported to a mod there.
This happened on metacanada and was stickied for hours.
Check out /r/againsthatesubreddits sometime and you'll see how bad some subs can get. The sub is left leaning , meaning either there isn't left related hate at this level or there is a clear bias. It does show the bottom of the barrel though.
The Donald also hate the rally in Charlottesville stickied even though it was it was organized by white supremacists. And after Heather was murdered they tried to act like they never had promoted it. And still to this day people say Heather died from a heart attack because she was fat and not hit by a car.
extreme sub
The thing is the Donald shouldn't be an extreme sub. It's 'the official' sub of the president of the United States.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
Is it really the official sub? Surely there's one that's less dramatic.
There is a ton of crossover between conspiracy and Donald
Conspiracy, IMO, has been messed up on purpose. It used to be genuinely interesting, and now it devolves into name-calling instead of real debate and research.
But it makes sense. Try going to r/worldnews and look at the amount of posts pushing the "Russia is the enemy" narrative. The heavy propaganda effort we experience today does remind me of 1984. (and yes I've read it)
Do you believe Russia is the enemy?
If you do you're wrong, you have fallen victim to propaganda and I pity you.
So what lies has the government spread about our adversarial nature with Russia? The only tie I've seen to 1984 was the false claim that this was the "we have always been at war with Russia" and that doesn't change the fact that it hasn't even been 30 years since the cold war ended, it would be ridiculous to believe that they went from adversary then, to neutral with us now.
Right now they are neither our friend or foe. They are seeking to make themselves a member at the table of great nations of the world and will take whatever path they feel will do that, even if that is a path of friendship.
The difference is that Nazis advocate for the genocide of a race while socialists do not. Let's also realize the argument you presented is a slippery slope fallacy.
Obviously Russia is an enemy. We made a bunch of eastern euro countries nato right after the Soviet union fell, they're not gonna forget that for a long time. Now we're selling weapons to Ukraine and you think Russia is not an enemy? 300 Russian-Syrian forces were decimated by US artillery a month ago and you think they're not the enemy? Wake the fuck up dude
The strategic enemy of my democratically elected officials; ergo enemies of me, a citizen. The US isnt a kingdom buddy we handled that issue a few hundred years ago.
The elected officials do not run your country. I am a bit surprised that you have that opinion and post on r/conspiracy, but let me give you an example.
George W. Bush ran on a platform of isolationism and "no more nation building".
What happened. War and nation building.
Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change", and general niceness.
What happened? Even more war, bombings. Killings.
Trump ran on a platform of trade, agreements and friendly relations with Russia.
What happened? Even more wars, conflict with Russia, many killings.
..and that is just a stupid example. It doesn't matter who you elect.
The elected officials do not run your country. I am a bit surprised that you have that opinion and post on r/conspiracy, but let me give you an example
Because I understand how a republic works.
George W. Bush ran on a platform of isolationism and "no more nation building".
What happened. War and nation building.
Yeah... Do you remember 9/11? Whatever your opinion on it being real or an inside job or whatever, politicians and citizens were united in that there needed to be a response of force. Obviously the actions GWB took were... Not good, but its unfair to say he didnt live up to his campaign promises when he had to deal with the largest attack on american soil since pearl harbor.
As for the rest of your comment, yeah obviously you're not going to get real substantial change from the executive branch. Real change goes through congress, who has checked out of governing altogether. Expecting a President to swoop in and change/fix the country in any long term way is naive. You want change, vote out your undoubtedly courrupt state representatives and vote in someone who can't get bought for a 2,000 dollar check.
The Russia angle is irrelevant, the concept in the book is complete obedience. It doesn't matter who the war is with, as long as you are always in line with the party line. The point of the book is the folly of being a sycophant, and never questioning anything those in power do or say.
Although this sub has a bit of a problem with hyperbole and an inability to actually read content, instead of going for the most extreme theory and running with that as if its the truth. It is interesting to see how quickly people will fall in line when they are told what they want to hear, and how they refuse to question a theory that they themselves believe to be true.
(plus a lot of the posters on here are obsessed with the whole SJW vs Conservatives angle, so anything from that clusterfuck of stupid will be a shit show from the get-go)
Agreed that the concept of the book is complete obedience. Which is exactly why I think banning Russian accounts meant to sow discord in our political system, regardless of how effective they were, isn't anything like the book.
I think the most important concept is the obliteration of the concept of objective truth.
Other books and other mediums have done authoritarianism and a totalitarian government, and will do it again. What makes 1984 unique is the fact that the state does not achieve its ends though intimidation or brute force; it simply makes it impossible to keep straight what happens.
Doublethink doesn't just mean someone contradicts themselves, it means that a person can believe with all their heart that the are completely dry, while being livid that you splashed them and hold these two thoughts simultaneously without seeing an issue.
They destroy any objective frame of reference so that there is no way to verify reality, to the point people can't believe their own thoughts.
The ultimate result of this is that whatever the state say is reality you have to believe. They say 2+2=5. You have no calculators of math books to check with. You can count on your fingers and know that two fingers on one hand and two fingers on the other hand will get you 4 fingers, and 2+2=5. "And" not "but". There is just no contradiction there.
The Russian are attempting to do the same thing by though different means. Rather than destroy objective truth they attempt to make truth and lies of equal credibility. Actively discredit reputable sources, while promoting their own websites that they wrote yesterday to say whatever they want. Make enough people think that all news is fake news then you have destroyed any objective frame of reference for reality. They can make any claim they want and people are won't be able to verify what is and isn't real. In stead of being unable to locate a calculator to check if 2+2=5, they throw 100 calculators into the room and tell you they're all shitty broken calculators. They make it harder for people to tell which one is and objective source.
So when they say that 2+2=5 they can point to the broken calculator that says that. Then they can say 2+2=8 later, find the calculator that says that, and say the other one was busted. Maybe you can locate the working, objective calculator, but they have already raised so much doubt that you're not sure it that one really is working.
The banning of Russian trolls is not 1984, the Russian trolls are 1984
I get your point and at some level I agree, as the goal is to get people in the position of doubting their own perception of reality. However, I would like to point that the whole end of that book is about them using brute force to break him.
You're so spot on with some of your analysis, then it falls off the rails. The Russian government is not the only player here. It's not as if corporate news was all factual and then Boris came along to ruin the party. Any accusation against a public figure can be waved away as a Russian trick. That's not nearly good enough. Find out where power intersects.
Freemasons ran Russia throughout the 20th century and I doubt they stopped. Look up the Royal Arch hand in coat sign and see how many famous Russians display it.
The problem is how do you define "Russian Troll" and who gets to decide. We have yet to see any solid evidence of anything they are claiming about Russia. And you're right, the analogy isn't 100% perfect so I guess we can't make the comparison at all, huh?
Well, I'm taking their claim at face value. If the claim is that they aren't just banning Russian Trolls, then I don't really have any evidence of that, but I would like to see the evidence people have that supports this claim.
Are you suggesting that Russia has been a major issue (politically) in the past decade? Cause it hasn't. This last election was the first time I've heard shit about Russia outside of Syria/Crimea issues.
Maybe not a major issue. I think that might be hard to quantify. But I would call Crimea a major thing, and it was only talking about 4 years ago. And the ongoing issues in Syria indicate that we are adversaries and that has been going on for quite some time.
The only thing I find major about the Crimea situaton in that it was Russian first and had 95.5% support to join Russia in 2014, hence why after the referendum the Crimean leader applied to join. Yet funnily enough we talk about it like its some apartheid land grab on the levels of Israel or something lol.
Crimea is a place of strategic military importance, especially for Russia. It was part of another country, and had been for over a quarter of a century. This country, Ukraine, was vying to become part of the major alliance with the US. Russia invaded it, without wearing their uniforms, overthrew the government, and then held a referendum asking what the Crimeans want to do. And most polls put rejoining Russia, admittedly with a plurality of the vote, at only 41%.
If you think that an election where 95.5% (I think the official total was actually closer to 97%) of the people vote one way is likely legitimate, when the polls prior to that put it at 41% and when they allowed no international observers, you are naive. If you think that 95.5% of the people of Crimea want to be part of Russia, when only 33% of Crimea is Russian, you are downright foolish.
If you can't see why this is a big deal, and you can't see the blatant conspiracy staring you in the face, you probably aren't as observant as you like to think yourself. You are probably more about trying to make things fit your narrative, rather than actually objectively looking at what is going on and rationally concluding what is going on.
Hahaha way too much propaganda to handle on the toilet for my liking, I dont think this is the type of place to peddle that crap, most people are well aware of the inorganic US/Soros backed fascist upheaval of the Ukrainian government around that time period so the whole Ukraine/US friendship purity ring bs can take a back seat.
Maybe we should stop at the admitted plurality of the vote and end the argument there, no? But then again I want to know what your thoughts are on the original decree from 1954? Disclosed to the people a week after it was decided behind closed doors, through the front page of a newspaper ad, no less. It was also approved by the Presidium of the Supreme council which did not hold enough seats for the quorum necessary to even pass it, having only 13 of the 27 seats, aka under 50%.
It should never have been illegally stolen in the first place, hence why the plebiscite had such a turnout as it did and the vote went the way it did. Thank goodness the people got what they wanted in the end!
most people are well aware of the inorganic US/Soros backed fascist upheaval of the Ukrainian government
You've caught yourself in a catch-22. You can't argue that we overthrew a government that was friendly to Russia and then they invaded it back taking something of strategic military value, but that it wasn't a major issue.
Ukrainian government around that time period so the whole Ukraine/US friendship purity ring bs can take a back seat.
No one said anything about a "purity ring," I was just pointing out the facts, none of which you actually disputed. Even if control of the government was completely orchestrated by the US and Russia, this is just evidence that they are, in fact, a adversary.
Maybe we should stop at the admitted plurality of the vote and end the argument there, no?
Why would we do that? You were the one who made the ridiculously naive and implicit claim that the outcome of the vote was actually representative of the feelings of the people of Crimea, or that the vote wasn't rigged.
But then again I want to know what your thoughts are on the original decree from 1954?
The question wasn't whether or not it was rightful property of Russia or of Crimea. The question was whether or not the annexation of Crimea by Russia was representative of a adversarial nature between the US and Russia.
And don't be silly. Ukraine has been independent with Crimea for 25 years. It's no coincidence that Russia took it back once it looked like the Ukraine was going to join NATO. If they really cared about it being their rightful property, why wait 25 years until taking it back? What changed? Oh yeah, the obvious thing, they were losing their influence over them.
It should never have been illegally stolen in the first place, hence why the plebiscite had such a turnout as it did and the vote went the way it did. Thank goodness the people got what they wanted in the end!
Wow, you can't be serious. There was 123% voter turnout. We have polls from before hand that put support for it at less than half of what they claim to have gotten. You say I'm repeating propaganda, but the motivation for this move was blatantly obvious, the referendum was an obvious sham (123% voter turnout, BTW) and you are defending the move by parroting Russian propaganda. And you accuse me of being a victim of propaganda. This is amazing.
But I did say it was major? It was just major for factors we didnt initially agree on but that of which you seem to have come around to in the opening statements of your post. Appreciated
And why are you telling me what we are and arent talking about? I couldnt care less about the finer nuances of your point my point has always been that the 'reclaiming' of Crimea was just, hence why I posted about the Presidium of the Supreme Council's ruling being 100% illegal. And that was just from the number of seats standpoint. Even if they somehow managed to pass the bill with the actual number of seats required it was constitutionally illegal anyway! A quote to better summarise:
“Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR or the USSR Constitution … provide powers of the Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR and for the consideration of the changes in the constitutional legal status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, members of the union republics. In view of the above, the decision adopted in 1954 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Soviet Union on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukraine SSR, did not correspond to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR and the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR.”
So the ruling was made well before a constitutional change granted the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Advisory) Council the power to carry out transfers of territories. Done and dusted right there.
But you seem to be really invested in the whole 123% voter turnout thing so could you enlighten me with those figures please? Because im scratching my head here. Everywhere shows the plebiscites turnout to be around 80-83%, even on MSM outlets, so im curious as to how your brain is working. Are you merely comparing the overall voter turnout to the Autonomous republic of Crimeas registered voters and not adding on the 300k or so from Sevastopol? Or, (and please tell me its not this) are you referring to the long since retracted yet widely circulated claims of voter turnout based on dodgy statistics given by ITAR-TASS? After reading through it would seem(i cbf editing) that you are indeed basing it off the aforementioned, as it was ITAR-TASS who originally peddled the incorrect 123% claim based on incorrect statistics that claimed there were 1,724,563 voters total as opposed to 1,524,563. They since retracted it but not before forbes and all the other scummy 'news' outlets peddled the disinformation. This is all backed up by the Central Election Commission of Ukraine so we can dispute the figures more if you want you but are absolutely incorrect about the matter and you will not find a modern piece that makes those claims today that hasnt since been retracted. Absolute rubbish this whole conversation.
For all the undecided users who couldnt be bothered reading a novel just peruse the internet and search away! Its not hard to find organic real people who are trying to shed light on Crimea since its return to Russia, wether it be through blogs or video etc.... Theres no question as to wether it was the right choice. Which is irrelevant anyway as it was the peoples choice.
You accuse me of spreading propaganda, but you are posting what is effectively a propaganda arm of the Russian government that says "life's great in Crimea now!" LOL.
You keep telling yourself that the referendum that got 97% of the vote, despite it never polling above 70% before, when no intentional observers were allowed, was legitimate and that this wasn't a big deal.
Hahaha what happened? You were doing the whole know it all dot point bombardment straight from the pro reddit arguers handbook and it turned into that puny statement? And it only took one comment? Jeez....You wanted to bring out the 'statistics' so now ive met you halfway you have reverted to nothing fluff?
Back up your claims though, while you are here with me now at the computer. Wheres your evidence of 123% voter turnout? Show me some links with the required information please
You are correct I got the number wrong. I came across it and its since been corrected.
But so what? My other points still stand, 97% after no polls put it above 70% and no one was allowed to observe should be obviously suspicious to anyone. Even polls since then do not put it above 82%. And none of this changes the fact that you are still using a Russian propaganda paper to support your position. And none of this changes the fact that Russia, once it looked like Ukraine was going to join NATO, "secretly" invaded the area and overthrew the government.
We can argue for days whether or not they should belong to Russia or Ukraine, and it's not even necessarily that I disagree with you on that, but the reality is that this was a big deal and trying to play this off as some kind of democratic "will of the people" is just propaganda of the Putin backed overthrow of that government. Trying to downplay this event as not evidence of a strong adversarial nature between the US and Russia is even weaker.
They still have more nukes than anyone aside from the US, so from an existential perspective they are and have been a major political issue in the past decade. Just because they haven't been front and center in your news consumption doesn't make them a 3rd tier concern to US foreign policy.
What the OP is saying (I think) is they will ban non-russian troll accounts under the pretext of them being Russian troll accounts if they say anything not construed to be in line with the liberal/left narratives.
The Russian Navy saved our asses in the American Civil War. We've had a rough relationship ever since the Bolsheviks took power, but frankly Russia is more cousin than enemy with the notable exception of Communism.
Holy fuck, are you new to poli sci? Please explain to me how a statist dictatorship is socialism? It's not, isms are tools for shaping state not states themselves. Socialistic tendencies have yet to blow up Norway, what's going on there? Just because you can regitate northamerican political tradition understandings does not it so in the rest of the world. Don't even try UK politics you'll see dirty commies everywhere.
Haha have you looked at their buget surplus due to their nationalized oil? Lolololololol don't hold your breath. I'm guessing you're the kind of person that doesn't realize you participate in socialism when you join the military. Even in the US.
But you are right, some policies in the US could be found in an outright socialist state. Welfare, social security, planned parenthood clinics to name a few. There's some nuance that goes into it. But you know that, you've taken poli sci.
Right. Isms are tools for shaping state not states themselves. So where the fuck was a socialist nation is history. Statism and American political traditions is what you're feeding me.
Horseshoe model is not very useful beyond broad brushstrokes. Yes, Stalin and Hitler were monsters, but they organized their societies in different ways.
It seems that said people throwing out the 1984 blanket statement also seem to thrive on TD. Makes sense but also sad that, as you said, none of these people seem to have actually read the book aside from the back panel.
Oh goody did I make the res list?? I look forward to the character attack fallacies instead of structured argument. But thank you for your sole contribution to the conversation with "Members of The_Donald do x" where x is the thing the other account was complaining about.
So as much as I'd like to throw out those character attacks as you clearly expect that, I would rather ask a question. When was the last time you read through 1984? And can you explain the actual relation to a private company deciding what user content to display?
You have read the book 3 times and you make it apparent that you still don't understand the simple "call it something else" nature of propaganda. No explanation offered to you will be satisfactory. The whole point is that people do one thing while saying another. You need things spelled out for you. You're the easy target for narrative.
You need things spelled out for you? Like proof and shit? Just shut up take this widespread hysteria from the hands of anonymous internet posters instead!
Perhaps because "sow confusion among the electorate" is a broad meaningless term. You can sow confusion among the electorate by telling them the truth if they are living a lie, such as "russia interfered with the election!" while ignoring israeli and chinese interference across the board.
The parallels and similarities revolve around the censoring of differing opinions and thought. In 1984, one was not allowed to speak or even think about anything that was not approved ministry of truth content. What the fear is on reddit, is that reddit, although a private company, might shut down differing opinions at the governments behest. That one might be punished for questioning the status quo. That is the similarity.
Now, I never go around throwing out 1984 references as I don't feel it is a convincing argument to others. Realize, that for the bulk of redditors, this is about "the donald" subreddit. Its not. Banning that subreddit wouldnt solve the problem. The users would just move into other subreddits, escaping the containment of their subreddit, spreading their messaging in a way we cant easily ignore it. Given that it wouldn't solve "the problem", and that it wouldn't be effective in any way, I don't feel its an important first step. And what is the second and third steps when this first step doesn't work? I think banning all bots, even the "good ones" and then individual users is a better approach, but even that is problematic.
I do see danger in silencing people. I think we are seeing the effects of people being silenced for the last 20ish years in many many ways. Silencing people doesnt change minds. Silencing people further isolates them from society. They will never change and only get worse and more extreme if they get kicked out.
Furthermore, reddit says that in their mass cleanup, they got rid of detectable bad actors (probably bots or the more extreme users). They say the rest are regular people who unwittingly were influenced by the bad actors. Well, how do you deal with that? I haven't seen one redditor who wants reddit Admins to "do more" actually come up with options. They are stuck on the idea that simply banning the Donald will work. So how does banning the Donald solve the problem?
Realize that the Russian influence campaign didn't create sentiments in a vacuum. It was effective because it used real feelings and sentiments of the populous and amplified it. Its reminds me of the rust belt who formally voted for obama, turning to trump. They didnt do so "because of russia". Its possible that Russia was the only entity paying attention to how they felt though. The Democrats certainly missed the boat. They were "surprised" that blue collar workers were even angry at their policies. So shutting down "dissent" speech is dangerous. You are not going to solve the problem of disenfranchisement by further isolating and ignoring people. Their sentiments are real. Its not "fake Russian news". If Russia amplified it, its still not "fake Russian news". These are real people with real feelings that Democrats took for granted and therefore ignored as a segment of their voting base they really should have been listening too. Same with Bernie voters. There is a big danger in the DNC chaulking up the last election to "Russia". Its a scapegoat that doesnt address the real sentiments of much of their base. Furthermore, the blame game, calling these people stupid over and over, blaming them for Clinton's loss is only further disenfranchising them. Its not solving the problem with how people feel, if anything, it confirms everything that made them want "change" to begin with. Don't forget, people wanted Bernie to run in 2012. The feelings were already there society. Banning the Bernie subreddits wouldn't be an effective to get these democrats back under the DNC tent, right? It would just further silence and ignore them.
If reddit was censoring on behalf of the government they would be censoring liberal subs wouldn't they? Republicans control basically the entire government. They are the establishment now.
No, because government doesn't happen in vacuum either. Facebook, google and twitter all got called up to Capital Hill to testify and change their content policies at the governments behest, did they not? Was not the government "Republican" when this happened?
And the two party system is a lie anyway. The people on either side of governments are educated together, are in the same clubs and sit on the boasts of directors of the same companies. It's there as an illusion to keep the status quo and to stop the unity of people through divide and conquer. Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, White/Black Lives Matter.
this idea that the government careens back and forth between the control of two completely different philosophies every few years is dumber and more evidence-free as any of the more bizarre conspiracy theories here
Which part of the government, though? The Trumpistas form a minority party even within the realm of the GOP. You cannot begin to suggest that the vast bulk of the US government supports Trump just because he is POTUS. Many (most?) are anti-Trump, often viciously anti-Trump.
So when it comes to censorship, is it the tiny Trumpista faction, or the bipartisan anti-Trump coalition that is literally everyone else in government?
Thank you, that is an unusually kind statement to find on the Internet.
To be fair, I don't personally think "the government" is sponsoring or directing this censorship. More that ideologically-aligned people in both the public and the private sector are working in parallel to achieve a common goal.
It’s been years since I’ve read the book, but I am a fan of Orwell. I think the most relevant parallel people are bringing up is the manipulation of assess to information by those in power as a key way to control the masses. If I remember correctly Winston’s whole job was to rewrite books to fit the government’s current narrative. I believe being in possession of a book that was not government approved was illegal as well. Today, in the digital hour, we don’t have to burn and rewrite books, those in power can just digitally change the information we have access to and most will blindly follow. They even have online sources to confirm that only their “facts” are true (I.e. Snopes).
‘Tech companies are private companies’ is one thing you brought up, but that is not necessarily relevant to comparison to the book. Yes, the government as a whole in the book fills the role of ‘Big Brother/TPTB’ but in reality TPTB are thought by most here to be a combination of people (namely: the deep state, Soros, Rothschilds, big media etc.) We know that many tech industry giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt (Facebook/google) where working directly with the dnc/Clinton/deep state machine, and in our world those are the people who have control over the information/narrative.
I believe what OP is referring to is Reddit (another tech giant) branding those with voices of decent “Russian trolls” as a way of silencing opposing opinions and maintaining control of the public’s access to information so that it aligns with the agreed upon narrative of TPTB.
In this age we don’t have to burn books or imprison people for their opinion to control access to information- we can just delete (or change) comments and posts, we can just call things that don’t fit the narrative “hate speech” and call people who challenge it “Russian Troll”.
Orwell was too heavy handed for the actualities of human nature. Even yourself here, too heavy handed with your assumptions and acceptance of a perspective as truth. It's more interesting than that, try brave new world, then prometheus rising then come back. This kind of censorship isn't even close to 1984, and your acceptance of the deep state boogeyman is pretty close to 2+2=5.
Dude, I’m just responding to someone’s comment about the parallels between Reddit censoring and the book 1984. I’m not saying it’s to the same level, I’m saying there are similarities.
Last I checked this was the conspiracy sub, we regularly hypothesize about everything from entities like the deep sate or bilderberg or other secret societies, to the existence of the supernatural or extraterrestrial influence on the building of the pyramids. If you’re going to mock my statements, and claim a conspiracy I’m considering is “2+2=5”, maybe this isn’t he place for you.
I miss the days when this place was about having a dialogue and finding the truth together, not attacking people personally and just shooting down any post you don’t agree with.
Worked for infowars homie. Been on this sub for years. I'm saying if you're going to venerate a thoroughly disproven book with a high school reading level as some conspiracy sub format, then maybe this place isn't for you. Elevate your game
Well maybe you should look into why Orwell wrote that book, who he was and what happened to the people he wrote the book about. Hint:it was zee Germans.
If you think the idea of a "deep state" isn't conpletely in line with human nature and every single piece of documentation we have about huiman nature for the last 3000+ years, then you are a fool.
Oh yea, give me an actual historical example that hasn't almost immediately been found out or had their power structures eroded? Hashassins? Jacobins? Every aristocracy ever? How about the Hapsbergs they actually did manage to consoladate and then bred themselves out of existence? Don't confuse intelligence communities for secret power structures, read more history.
So... exactly what is happening in the real world? Lol. The argument was never that "there is a secret society that has existed from day one". The argument is that oligarchies and "deep state"-style control is perfectly in line with every thing history tells us about human nature.
You yourself have just listed a fraction of the numerous examples that show that it is perfectly natural and overtly commonplace for humans to seek power and consolidate their power at the expense of others.
Just because every form of rule, throughout history, has collapsed or eroded over time, does not mean that it isn't part of human nature to build exclusive structures of power.
In fact, the ancient Greek oligarchs didn't have the boosted ability to spread propoganda that the internet provides. They didn't have nearly as extensive a capability as to gather data on everyone's online activities, television habits, porn habits, tax records, etc. They didnt have the ability to monitor phone calls, internet searches, read emails.
So, if anything, the state of technological advancement has empowered the power-seeking side of human nature for those who wish to capitalise on it.
So, really, it's up to you to demonstrate that power-seeking people don't exist, and that it would be impossible for them to utilize the things I mentioned, plus many, many other things, in order to establish secretive oligarchich control over industry and politics.
I've a degree in poli Sci, history and audio engineering
Haha. I'm glad to see you got so butthurt that you snoopsnoo'd me.
Oh hell yeah I'm coming back to respond to this, at work, but I can tell you don't understand my argument. As for your technology example you're dead wrong and I'll list the Zheng as examples, information was WAY easier to control in insulated societies, it's how we got religions.
information was WAY easier to control in insulated societies, it's how we got religions.
Riiiight... And that that information was so easily controlled is why every religion is fractured into competing groups with differing beliefs, right?
Religions are just a system of control; people, in keeping with their human nature, often seek to co-op these systems for their own gains in power. So, again, exactly what ive been saying. And, gee, I wonder why people would attempt to insulate a state's population from a diversity of information? It must be because it's against human nature for a ruler to insulate himself against dissent.... right? Makes sense.
Also, zheng was over twice as old as the US when it fell, just for the record.
If you think the idea of a "deep state" isn't conpletely in line with human nature and every single piece of documentation we have about huiman nature for the last 3000+ years, then you are a fool.
The concept is inline with human nature, the "in-practice" it not being throughly shared and common knowledge is impossible.
The lack of available evidence and documentation in a world with infinite examples of such evidence getting out, would suggest the impracticality of your hypothesis.
There are "infinite", your words, examples of attempts at behind-the-scenes control, many of which lasted hundreds of years before erosion and actual historical scrutiny.
I've read and enjoyed 1984. Here are some parallels I make: like Oceania spying on its citizens, the big companies monitor their customers' behavior and use it, like the Ministry of Truth, to censor the news or change them through "Newspeak" words.
You can compare big communities to countries. You can compare admins to leaders. You can compare authoritarian communities to 1984.
Reddit (and most other big online communities) don't want to get rid of ALL propaganda, they just choose which one they allow. Like in 1984.
There are many responses to this, here are two big ones:
1) Corporations are granted charters by government and therefore function as agents of the government.
2) Do you have any understanding of how many companies control the vast majority of our food supply? How about news and entertainment? How many companies dominate both sectors? Yes, we have "choice," but the choice is largely meaningless. You can shop at Target or Walmart, the choice is yours.
Why is it all red or blue? A bit off topic but I see all this red and blue everywhere. Pepsi or coke, Walmart or Target, republican or democrat. Why is it always a choice of red or blue?
You can choose to be censored on Reddit. Or censored on Facebook. Or censored on YouTube! And if you don't want to be censored you can use some tiny website that nobody else uses!
I mean sure nobody else will use it and see your updates but it's a choice!
1) Corporations are granted charters by government and therefore function as agents of the government.
That's not how charters work. The charters show that they meet the state and federal standards to establish a business. By your logic, every single corporation (no matter how big or small) is an agent of the government.
2) Do you have any understanding of how many companies control the vast majority of our food supply? How about news and entertainment? How many companies dominate both sectors? Yes, we have "choice," but the choice is largely meaningless. You can shop at Target or Walmart, the choice is yours.
When any person uses a website, they agree to their terms and services. If you didn't agree (or frankly read) the terms, then you have yourself fo blame or you can take it up to the court system.
What about when the online communities and the users are redefining the words and narrative? Like accusations of false flag attacks or spreading misinformation on something such as global warming or fake news? Isn't it the prerogative of the corporation to enact their own code of conduct?
To add to /u/Zwicker101 in Oceania their isn't any opting out of their system, while with reddit and facebook you don't have to use those things at all and can still live a completely, normal, unimpeded life.
George Orwell never imagined that people could be convinced to participate of their own free will. Aldous Huxley is the one who understood this part of the story.
To counter your argument. This is why we don't need net neutrality. Nobody is FORCING you to use the internet. If you don't like what Comcast is doing you can simply not use the internet just like you cannot use Facebook
To add to /u/Zwicker101 in Oceania their isn't any opting out of their system, while with reddit and facebook you don't have to use those things at all and can still live a completely, normal, unimpeded life.
The same Facebook that European courts have ordered to stop following non users?
I passed no judgment on whether or not them doing it was okay, only that the claim by the top comment that this was out of the 1984 playbook doesn't make much sense.
only that the claim by the top comment that this was out of the 1984 playbook doesn't make much sense.
It makes complete sense that this is out of 1984. You should read some of the other comments below here. I particularly enjoy this one via u/Grinfader
I've read and enjoyed 1984. Here are some parallels I make: like Oceania spying on its citizens, the big companies monitor their customers' behavior and use it, like the Ministry of Truth, to censor the news or change them through "Newspeak" words.
You can compare big communities to countries. You can compare admins to leaders. You can compare authoritarian communities to 1984.
Reddit (and most other big online communities) don't want to get rid of ALL propaganda, they just choose which one they allow. Like in 1984.
First, we are narrowly talking about the removing of Russian bots, which is what the OS is about. So bringing in the "spying on its citizens" is a red herring.
Calling this "an authoritarian community" because they ban some, as you admit (or at least the argument you quoted admitted), propaganda is quite a stretch.
And claiming that what they did in 1984 to "not getting rid of all propaganda" is a ridiculous oversimplification. They banned and removed all dissenting views. It's not hard for me to look around reddit and see plenty of people dissenting to this very action, and to what is considered the major belief system of reddit (from this sub reddit).
First, we are narrowly talking about the removing of Russian bots, which is what the OS is about.
"Russian Bots" can easily be seen as an excuse. I actually has some eastern European friends, including my first ever job was at a metalwork company owned by a Russian Jew (owners son is still my friend) there are actual russian redditors who are not bots.
As you can see, we can create some sort of "excuse" and blow it up as a reason to purge those we don't like
So bringing in the "spying on its citizens" is a red herring.
NSA is already spying on everyone, something that was brought in because "9/11 terrorists." Its a formula: Create false flag/psy op, use said disaster to pass whatever the heck you want
Calling this "an authoritarian community" because they ban some, as you admit (or at least the argument you quoted admitted), propaganda is quite a stretch.
It's not a stretch, its literally the beginning of a purge of "those who the tech companies don't like under the guise of ______(Enter excuse here). In this case, the Purge is happening on Google, Twitter, FB, YouTube's Purge started last week, and lo and behold, Reddit's purge is also coinciding with the purge of the other Tech Companies. Context is everything.
And claiming that what they did in 1984 to "not getting rid of all propaganda" is a ridiculous oversimplification. They banned and removed all dissenting views.
Because the formula goes like this:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
If its "Just Russian Bots" then no one will bat an eye, because majority are not Russian bots, while they can also systematically scoop up a few of the biggest dissenters on reddit (highest karma, most active, a mod here or there, etc)
Then after "Russian Bots" Reddit is already discussing banning T_D, r/uncensorednews, complaining that r/news mods are leftists like r/politics, and I think you can see where this is going.
You are simply seeing step 1: First they came for the russian bots, but I did not speak out because I was not a Russian Bot
Replying for visibility: the parallel is that these companies are clearly colluding with the party in order to officially make the party the ONLY party.
As what they do only benefits one party. The party
Orwell didn't realize that liberals would be dumb enough to not only let massive corporations fill the role of the Ministry of Truth (under the guise of "market forces"or whatever), they'd actually pay for the telescreens to be installed in their own homes
My goodness you really don't see how large scale manipulation of information has anything to do with the themes of 1984? Try the Cliffs Notes for fucks sake.
Fucking thank you. The OMG CENSORSHIP stuff drives me batty.
Fundamentally none of the people losing their shit over this would try to argue that I'm required to let someone keep ranting about whatever topic they want in my living room.
It's absolutely no different here. Learn what the Bill of Rights actually defines, morons.
Can you explain to me why private something like Comcast or Verizon or not private companies allowed to do what they want with isps? But Facebook Reddit YouTube excetera ARE private companies allowed to censor whoever they want?
did comcast forget to fill out the correct paperwork to make it self a private company?
Well, not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China. . .
However, avoiding facebook reddit and youtube is easy, you simply don't type them into your address bar and go somewhere else. While, for the vast majority of Americans, it is either a monopoly or a duopoly, and avoiding Comcast or Verizon is near impossible.
There is just as many alternatives to Comcast as there are two Facebook YouTube and reddit
Wow, did you just suggest that there are as many ISPs as there are websites? It's first thing in the morning, and I've already heard the most stupid thing I will hear all day.
Careful or they will "unperson"...err...shadowban you for thoughtcrime.
In a perverse sort of way its actually funny when Admins have to resort to shadowbanning because they know that it fully justifies a user coming back with alt accounts and then really engaging in a blazing hellstorm of mischief. When Admins shadowban, they are just "cutting off their nose to spite their face" because they take one problem and turn it into a dozen problem "hydra" when the person eventually discovers their supposedly "clever" tactic.
Yes, shadowbanning does waste the time of someone misbehaving, but in a war of attrition with "time wasting" as the goal, there will simply never be enough Admins to outnumber the angered users they are creating. They are fighting a losing battle.
tfw 1984 is about the government completely controling the masses and not a private business running a website banning people that don't adhere to their moral beliefs.
You have no idea what youre talking about, these sites can block/ban/do whatever they want in the realm of their own forum. the simple answer is, if you dont like the way a website/business is treating you, then stop using the service. Citing 1984 makes you look ignorant.
I disagree. We're not talking about small forums but giant communities who have a huge impact on culture. Sure, you can stop using Google/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter, but you will probably become an outcast. Internet presence is getting more and more important. If you're an artist, or a programmer, or a small company owner or a million other occupations, you almost need to be a part of these communities. This need will grow, though the companies themselves may change.
Communities transcend geopolitical borders. Our actual nationalities are becoming less and less relevant. We don't care if the people we chat daily with are from another country as long as they're our brothers from our beloved subreddit/fb group/hashtag. Online communities are the countries of tomorrow.
So then really your argument is that web forums are either more important than the government, or should be run by a government body? I disagree on both these viewpoints for a few reasons, more importantly, Reddit is privately owned and matter-of-factly doesn't owe you or your viewpoints shit. I'm not happy with that being reddits future, and you can do whatever you want with that information, but at the end of the day thats how it is.
The difference is you waive your rights on this site. They have full control to do what they wish, as it is in their EULA. If you don’t like it, don’t participate.
If for whatever reason they began doing this, it isn’t the government doing it so your rights aren’t being violated. It’s a private company exercising their right over their domain.
Just like how people could be shot for trespassing on property.
Perhaps you should ask him instead of jumping to the conclusion that whoever his "We" is must be incorrect. Maybe he means his buddies at the local bar...who knows?
Meh, get yourself a masstagger with RES and you would be surprised the kind of accounts that get flagged. Mostly false positives, but there are fuckloads of shill accounts that look insanely sketchy.
r/russia is particularly aggrieved by spez's announcement that reddit will be hunting high and low for hidden Russian trolls.
Dominant media corporations - Fkbook, twitter, youtube, reddit are the non-governmental versions of China's censorship, which in the west absolves them of any kind of free speech adherence; we're a private company we can do what we want.
China is leading the way for where the internet is really going. And it ain't free interaction and mingling of ideas.
European countries have passed laws against hate speech. China recently banned the N. When does N become ----> hate speech and therefor ----> banned by corporate social media platforms who can allow or censor anything they choose.
You can be sure that's exactly where all of this is headed.
They are afraid of something that is a non-issue, while ignoring massive swaths of corruption and interference from actual threatening nations.
Israel has openly attacked and kidnapped US citizens according to the reports on Hollywood molester weinstein, he used mossad agents to intimidate and attack his accusers..
I honestly never thought people would be dumb enough to embrace this level of tyranny with open arms.
Its scary, isn't it?
The masses really are stupid and gullible, more than I ever thought possible. Its so easy for those with power to manipulate the masses into working against their own interests, and its a truly repulsive spectacle to behold. I'm starting to think that war is inevitable.
Dominant media corporations - Fkbook, twitter, youtube, reddit are the non-governmental versions of China's censorship, which in the west absolves them of any kind of free speech adherence; we're a private company we can do what we want.
China is leading the way for where the internet is really going. And it ain't the free interaction and mingling of ideas.
What bothers me the most is the people- especially on this sub- who are myopic enough to support it just because it's currently happening to people they disagree with. To say it's disappointing is an understatement.
It is funny that I give people firsthand sources and still get attacked. There is a video of Obama saying it is not possible to rig the election. Of course, he said this when he was sure Hillary would win. The ironic thing is Obama and Hillary tried to rig the election.
I remember when it looked like Hillary was going to roll Trump right over in the polls, and Obama came out and said it was not possible for foreign interference in the election.
She lost and all of a sudden it's the Russians that did it.
There's no proof they had anything to do with it, but the hypocrisy is amazing. The USA has meddled with so many elections around the world to bring a favourable outcome to them, but will happily blame another country on an election loss because it didn't suit their agenda.
The USA were the ones who put Boris Yeltsin in power FFS, they even bragged about in on the front on Time Magazine.
Yup. The intelligence agencies have lied to us to further their own agenda so many times you'd have to be a fool to take them at their word about anything. I don't believe anything that comes from them until I see the proof with my own eyes. How many times must one be burned before they stop putting their fucking hand on the stove?
Apparently something so incriminating that all parties lied on their forms when swearing into public office. It's being investigated now and no amount of shilling is gonna stop it. I think they have 5 indictments so far. That's more than any investigation you can name in all of US history.
So you don’t know? But I thought you said there was collusion?
No one is arguing that Trump is corrupt. Just about all government officials are. But you’re saying there was collusion and so far the indictments have only been for corruption
So you don’t know? But I thought you said there was collusion?
No one knows exactly how far it goes...
All we know is that it goes so far that Trump is still hiding his tax returns, his appointees have all committed crimes by hiding the meeting, and Mueller has 5 indictments and counting.
You can't name any other investigation with that much incriminating evidence in all of US history.
Oh I def did t say it’s for innocent reasons. They could be doing shady shit that has nothing to do with collusion. Or maybe they lied bc they’re embarrassed they got duped by a music producer.
What you’re doing is called “attribution bias.” You’re assuming you know why someone did something when you don’t.
Russia isn't the one turning the middle east into bloodbath based on lies, so yes.. At least in my opinion its just fine if Russia "interferes" in our elections.
You going to just run this in circles? America had been circling Syria like a vulture for 5 years before that attack with no solid way in. Why would Assad do the one thing that would vindicate American intervention in a war he was winning? The only parties who would have benefited from that gas attack were America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. You're a fool if you think we wouldn't have done it ourselves to get on the ground there. You don't think a shill would just hit the report button and this stupid fucking argument?
Anyway, your argument is ridiculous. Anything that could be construed as serving America's interests couldn't possibly have happened? So nothing in history that has ever served American interests has ever happened? WWII ending was just a smokescreen? The Cold War never happened or never ended?
You're ridiculous.
Fair enough...assume just for the sake of discussion that that was real...one point against Russia...now how about mentioning the multitude of points against Israel? Did bombing school children with white phosphorus help the cause of peace any? Has kidnapping, torturing and threatening children with rape...calmed things down? Russia couldn't begin to catch up with Israel in terms of civilian violence.
Sorry whataboutism isn't a thing anymore...ity was used to death by retards who don't believe that examples are allowed. Unfortunately, they can't be placed on mandatory psychotropic medications, so the term still pops up occasionally.
Ever hear of Assad and his chemical weapons attacks on civilians?
That was Russia.
Jesus, you're daft. No one fucking knows who actually did it except the people who did it, and what's more the number of people killed in suspected chemical attacks in Syria is a teeny, tiny fraction of a percent of the over all death toll. Western media made a big deal out of it because the use of chemical weapons is just abhorrent enough to warrant military a military response (whereas indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is not I guess).
No one fucking knows who actually did it except the people who did it, and what's more the number of people killed in suspected chemical attacks in Syria is a teeny, tiny fraction of a percent of the over all death toll. Western media made a big deal out of it because the use of chemical weapons is just abhorrent enough to warrant military a military response (whereas indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is not I guess).
So...
It never happened....
But even though it did happen, it's insignificant...
And even if it's not insignificant, it's the Western media's fault...
Agreed, and America has been doing it more than any other country. The only reason this is an issue is because Hillary lost. If Trump had lost, people would laugh it Trump complained about Russian meddling. LOL.
Besides, it was Obama and Hillary that sold our uranium to Russia, so how bad can Russia really be?
Its not a thing anymore...they beat it into the ground and killed what tiny molecule of validity it had in the first place. Now that demonization of offering examples in order to derail legitimate argument has been exposed, we are all better off.
Because our current administration says so. If it wasn't ok then they would in force sanctions on them to show that this action won't be tolerated.
I'm being facetious btw... I agree with you. All countries will strive to enforce their wills on others. It's only the secure ones that can stand up to the bullies (even if they are bullies themselves).
Countries 'meddling' in other countries elections has been par for the course for decades. The fact that one single country is being called out and demonized for it should be pretty telling....
I remember when it looked like Hillary was going to roll Trump right over in the polls, and Obama came out and said it was not possible for foreign interference in the election.
Already fixed mine before you replied. Sorry, was looking at a different comment. The link is still relevant, because it clears up exactly what anyone could be referring to about what Obama said.
To be clear: Obama remarked it was not possible to rig election in response to Trump saying that if he lost they should investigate Hillary for rigging the election (since she is so corrupt). This was prior to the Russia allegations surfacing.
Obama remarked it was not possible to rig election
Yes, but the poster, I believe unless I missed something Obama said, tried to spin the "rig" comment into "interfere," presumably to make their point that this was only made up after they lost.
But there is a lot of evidence that Obama had been warned about this prior to those comments.
Yes, and most everyone has long accepted the result, but are just saying we need to stop it from happening again. Trump was calling into the question the legitimacy of the election before it even had happened and Obama did give the sound advice to him to stop whining... But he still hasn't stopped.
I've had people use this "tactic" on me (provide sources) and (although sometimes they are solid references) many times it is simply an appeal to an authority that reports false information. It is all well and good to look for hidden information, but the appeal to believe something only because it is uncommon is a dangerous one.
All information must be critiqued equally. Burden of proof is on everyone and the moment we forget this we have been duped.
Pure silliness...burden of proof is only...and always only...upon the one making the affirmative assertion. There are no exceptions to this...except perhaps among "debates" between mental asylum patients, but I'll not speculate on where you learned this "burden of proof is on everyone" idea.
Who is making the "affirmative assumption"? Answer: you are. Online there is no third party athority that needs to be convinced. It is always and only you and the person that disagrees with you. In their mind, they are right and you are "making the affirmative assumption". In your mind you are right and they are "making the affirmative assumption".
Are you really reading incorrectly, or just don't grasp that the words assumption and assertion are different?
Moving on to your claim about "no third party..." You are aware that these posts are viewable by the public and are not private communications...right? Isn't that the point of discussion forums...to see ideas from others? Do you seriously believe that no one reading is ever influenced or convinced?
Assertion vs assumption: i could blame this on autocorrect, but as long as you got the meaning I don't care enough to defend it.
Hopefully people have their minds changed through discussion (otherwise why participate), but I would hope that this happens by providing proof and logic... not by appealing to the authority of the thread.
Remember when they also said that we MUST accept the outcome of the election? And that we should not be divisive but move forward as a country? Yeah, fucking hypocrites. I completely regret voting for Obama. Pulling shit like making American propaganda to other countries legal in America and pulling Section 8 criminals from Chicago to Des Moines Iowa because it needed to be more vibrant. He will be proven to have been a corrupt, anti-American piece of shit.
Trump was saying in 2016 that Clinton was going to rig the election with illegal votes and that if he didn't win they would challenge it. Clinton and Obama said that obviously wasn't true, and that whatever the election outcome was, they would accept the result in that context.
Now it's two years later and we know that the election was being influenced by a foreign government. Trump's win may indeed be less than "legitimate". Especially since we've also learned that Russian hackers had access to the voter rolls in many swing states.
However, nobody is talking about declaring his win to be illegitimate and throwing him out if office and installing Clinton. We've still all accepted, including Clinton, that Trump is president.
Sometimes you learn new information that causes you to change your stance on an issue. That doesn't make you a hypocrite.
Just like you're about to learn that the intelligence communities you've been bandying about have come out and said Russia had to material influence on the outcome of the election and while they attempted to access voter rolls, none were changed. Are you under the impression that Russia hacked DNC servers and released truthful information that helped the public make a more informed choice? Even though I'd kinda appreciate that effort, I can see an argument where that's distressing on a national security level. The democrats don't think so though, because they refused multiple times to turn that server over for investigation by the FBI. Huh.
We already know many illegals we're registered to vote and some did, though a full investigation hasn't been performed. We also know loads of dead people seem to be big fans of the democrat party, and we have from the horses mouth from the dem NYC voting commissioner how they bus people around and fuck the system in that was. We have video of Scott foval admitting to fucking the republicans by cheating and that they'll be damned if they ever stop. There's also the question of why Soros owns 2/3 of electronic voting machines and why those machines are programmed with the ability to give individual votes a decimal point tally.
So I'm sorry bub, but there were many legitimate questions going into this highly contentious winner takes all election. The sort of "meddling" you're referring to from Russians (and Chinese and whoever else) was known about by Obama when he made the statements we're referencing them. At the time though, they were certain Hillary was going to win so they didn't want to cast any doubt in the results if she did.
Let's be clear in what they're saying. The IC doesn't think, according to what they've said publicly, that votes were changed or that voter rolls were altered, but they do think that Russia was involved in an influence campaign in the election.
Given the first hand accounts of people showing up to vote only to be told they weren't registered when days before that they checked and were registered, I think the IC has been slowly revealing more and more information about the depth of the hacking in order to not cause a mass panic by dumping what they know all at one time.
and while they attempted to access voter rolls, none were changed.
that helped the public make a more informed choice?
That's the thing about propoganda; it often does have elements of truth in it. But that doesn't change that it's propoganda, and when it comes from a foreign country it's not for altruistic intentions. I love the language you used here by the way, "help the public make a more informed choice" as if fucking Vladimir Putin was engaging in his patriotic American civil duty. Lol.
Even though I'd kinda appreciate that effort,
Alright I'll keep that in mind in 2020, I hope Kamala Harris teams up with Mexico to lead a propoganda and hacking campaign against Trump.
I can see an argument where that's distressing on a national security level.
Well I'm glad you agree with our IC then.
The democrats don't think so though, because they refused multiple times to turn that server over for investigation by the FBI. Huh.
They had it privately investigated by a company that specializes in that kind of work. Should they have also had the FBI look into it? Probably, but then people like you would just say "well of course James Comey agreed with the DNC line" and so it wouldn't really make a difference either way would it?
The point is, the FBI also accepted CrowdStrike's findings.
We already know many illegals we're registered to vote and some did, though a full investigation hasn't been performed.
Do you have a source for these claims or should I just take them at face value?
We also know loads of dead people seem to be big fans of the democrat party,
Source?
... the dem NYC voting commissioner how they bus people around and fuck the system in that was.
Again no source. But I was able to find this one myself.
To be clear, he wasn't "admitting to something he and the democrats did together," so it isn't really "from the horse's mouth". He's alleging that other people do it. So okay, one dude claims that other people do something they shouldn't be doing. If he has proof, he should provide it so it can be stopped. Does he have proof? No, of course not. But all project Veritas has to do is find one idiot with a D next to his name that is willing to say some crazy shit and then that's immediately proof to you of a conspiracy to rig an election.
We have video of Scott foval admitting to fucking the republicans by cheating and that they'll be damned if they ever stop.
Another project veritas video? Go ahead and link me the raw, unedited footage of what they recorded in this video or else stop relying on deceptively edited hit pieces to make wild claims.
There's also the question of why Soros owns 2/3 of electronic voting machines and
The sort of "meddling" you're referring to from Russians
You don't have to put it in quotes, it's a real thing and people have been indicted for it.
(and Chinese and whoever else)
Trying to downplay it by suggesting other people do it too? If they did, they should be investigated and indicted as well. Doesn't mean Russia doing it is okay.
was known about by Obama when he made the statements we're referencing them.
Yes, but NOT BY THE PUBLIC. He made those statements to the public in a way that the context of the situation at the time would only imply the specific meaning of a response to what Trump was saying. Trump was saying, "Clinton is going to rig the election via voter fraud". Obama responded to that, saying, "No she's not, it's basically impossible to rig an election that way". He wasn't saying anything about Russia in that quote. This is like taking somebody in 1968 saying "we've never been to the moon" as proof that the moon landing in 1969 didn't happen. The context of the quote clearly implies that Obama was talking about Trump's claims of voter fraud. Not outside election interference.
At the time though, they were certain Hillary was going to win so they didn't want to cast any doubt in the results if she did.
Ah, that claim was more fun when Trump made it last year. But which is it? Was Obama doing absolutely nothing about Russia or was Obama spying on the Trump campaign and its Russian ties?
"Influence" is such a vague term that its meaningless. I influenced the election when I discussed politics with my elderly neighbor. My in-laws from Vietnam influenced the election when they told my family that they liked Trump. So who gives a shit?
Yeah thats totally it. I really dont care what you think because as soon as that indictment gets handed down yall gonna be whining and we wont have to hear from yall anymore
4 day old account that only posts in a conspiracy subreddit pushing a specific agenda associated with Russian trolls.
Interesting...
Also posting fake news articles
Also interesting...
Googling the username and finding a bunch of Russian language sites tied to it.
Starting to see a pattern here...
Before you write 'you are proving my point! The Russian shill narrative is being used to silence!', there's a difference between an obvious real American posting their views, and your situation. Spare us the BS.
My account is 4 days old? And I'm posting fake news? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, Yagoda was a Soviet. You should read up on him.
How much money did the Saudis and Israelis throw behind the Clinton campaign? Why is it ok for some countries to influence the U.S. election, but not others?
You call it "whataboutism" and I call it Equal Protection- the same rules apply equally to everyone. There is not one set of rules for some people, and another set of rules for others. That is not fair and just.
There no honest people who understand what is going on saying the election was rigged. If they are, that is not accurate based on what we know from the facts, or they are misusing the word. At least on a wide scale. It is reasonably possible to "rig" things on possibly a small scale, but even that would be a stretch.
The argument is, and has been for a while, that they have interfered with the election. They have manipulated social media to sow confusion and division among americans and distrust of major institutions, allowing people to be free to believe whatever they want.
The ironic thing is Obama and Hillary tried to rig the election.
The ironic thing is that we have a lot of strong evidence of an actual conspiracy here, the Russians using fake accounts to sow distrust in the American population, and this sub rejects it as fake. However, ridiculous claims about Obama and Clinton trying to rig the election, for which there which there is no evidence, get upvotes.
The lefts crusade against "Russian bots" is far more divisive than any scheme the Russians could've dreamt up. You seem to be intentionally dense for chatting on a conspiracy sub.
Bullshit. The media is doing everything they can to intentionally whip the masses into a blood thirsty frenzy on the the very specific lie that Russia made Trump happen, and now every time some one calls for proof, outs a bad source, or just flat out calls bullshit your side quietly moves the goal post so you can hide behind these semantics. Russia "Interfering" by dabbling in social engineering isn't fucking news.. and it sure as shit isn't important enough to start silencing people online for speaking their opinions. How far is this shit going to go?
allowing people to be free to believe whatever they want.
Wow that's awful! The Hillary propaganda machine didn't get what it wanted and now we're dusting off the ol' Red Scare because ya know, Americans (especially rural and suburban retards, right??) are just so STUPID that they need to be told what to think.
It is interesting how they want unrestrained immigration from the Middle East and Africa, but not from the white Christian Slavic countries. One wonders what the true agenda is...
They have manipulated social media to sow confusion and division among americans and distrust of major institutions, allowing people to be free to believe whatever they want.
Another reading of the facts would be that the IRA was exploiting the polarization of opinions in the US (which existed long before 2016) to generate demographically distinct audiences through sensationalist click baiting in an effort to peddle them to advertisers.
From Mueller's Russian troll indictment:
Defendants, posing as US. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive US. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by US. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans ...
And now the kicker:
Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.
In the context of a commercial marketing scheme, the fact that the online activities ran long after the election, the fact that the ads and tweets were not universally anti-Hillary nor pro-Trump, the fact that the entire budget for the scheme was laughably small compared to billions spent domestically on the election, and the fact that everything was so amateurish and easily traceable all suddenly make sense.
The reason the Russian trolls stuff was so sensationalist and polarized was not because they were trying to sow discord and division--it was because that's what fucking clickbait has to be to work.
Doesn't "rigging the election" include registering non-Americans to vote, and then having them vote?
"The ironic thing is that we have a lot of strong evidence of an actual conspiracy here, the Russians using fake accounts to sow distrust in the American population, and this sub rejects it as fake." The Russians did not do this, and, even if they did, it is not illegal. There is Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, and it is no longer illegal to give propaganda to the American people.
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
"However, ridiculous claims about Obama and Clinton trying to rig the election, for which there which there is no evidence, get upvotes." There is evidence.
Pennsylvania Officials Accused of Hiding Data on Noncitizen Voting:
I asked someone earlier to explain the difference. Maybe it was not you.
Rigging is registering non-Americans as voters, and then letting them vote. Rigging is also allowing access to the Soros controlled election machines so the votes can be changes or discarded.
How do you define influencing an election? Does this include accepting millions of dollars from Saudis and Israelis?
Or steemit. Or gab. Or something completely new. Life finds a way. It's not like Reddit was the first message board on the Internet, we've been shuffling around since the internet's inception.
I don’t know whether to upvote or downvote this. On the one hand I believe in a company’s ability to refuse their service, on the other hand I believe in people first amendment right and right now Reddit and YouTube are by far the most popular platforms, in text and video formats respectively, for people to voice their opinions.
With YouTube hiring the SPLC to police their content they basically flaunted their bias. I mean come on, MAC, James Yeager, and a number of other gun channels being banned or striked / flagged right after the introduction of the SPLC, but no strikes for jake Paul Logan Paul etc? Yeah fucking right. Not to mention the InfoWars channel being striked for their crisis actor James Hogg video. It’s so obvious that they’re showing bias. Yes it’s disgusting content but it’s also free speech, they’re not inciting violence or releasing anything but his name and face thatve been plastered on pretty much every news outlet.
I’m afraid for the future of society and our first amendment. I’d go as far to say all the assaults on the second amendment are distractions from our first amendment rights being stripped away.
YouTube are banning right leaning accounts every day so it makes sense that reddit would follow suit. It's amazing that the people who are doing this all studied 1984 in college and think they understand it. Literally doublethink.
Orwell was a socialist when he was young and fought on that side in the Spanish Civil War. But like a lot of socialists/liberals when you grow up and hit 40, the whole narrative falls apart. 1984 and Animal Farm are basically Orwell's rejection of socialism.
Animal Farm was published in 1945. Here is a quote from the essay "Why I Write":
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it."
Well this is an interested spin that will allow people to continue to deny the influence of Russian trolls, while further convincing themselves they're right.
I looked up the Ten GOP tweets and it just parroted whatever any Conservative says during an election.
Jimmy Dore, who's firmly on the left, looked into the "troll farm" and it was just a clickbait site pandering to the right posting shit like "six most controversial NASCAR drivers, number 1 will surprise you".
The VP of advertising at Facebook said there were no significant as buys from Russia until after the election.
I'm seeing a lot of accusations, what I'm not seeing is evidence Russia moved the needle in any significant way, especially in comparison to say Breitbart or CNN, who gave Trump wall to wall 24/7 coverage.
I just find it hilarious that you retards still think Trump is doing anything resembling "draining the swamp" or going against the establishment. They love him. He's a braggadocious manchild that is too busy Tweeting on the shitter to understand what's going on around him. Too busy dividing Americans with his rhetoric to realize the shady shit going on in the background.
This whole "the establishment is shaking in their boots!" shtick is hilarious. I really wonder how far you can bury your heads in the sand before it finally becomes too much.
Meanwhile he makes a comment about becoming President for life like is happening in China AND confiscating guns without due process and his supporters still slob on his knob. If that was Obama y'all would be out in the streets rioting for fucks sake.
Trump is a billionaire conman with billionaire conman friends, who have spent their entire lives looking after themselves and stepping on the little guy. Trump is entrenched in the establishment and has no intentions of "draining the swamp". They're not terrified of him, he's their useful idiot that takes all the flak for their fucked up policies.
Please elaborate on how they influenced the election. Was it influencing both sides? If they were sharing content that somebody agrees with and shared anyway, what is the problem? Can you foresee a scenario where an overreaction to "Russians" causes far more division and problems in the future?
Because their influence is still permeating all social media and thought.
So you want to police what people think? Please tell me what thoughts should be stamped out. There are tons of people, corporations, and governments trying to sway opinion. How do we remove all of those thoughts from people's heads?
So not removing thoughts, just replacing them with thoughts that somebody else approves of?
It is ideas that have been firmly implanted about whole groups of people by professional trollers and large groups are still gobbling it all up.
Do you not see how this could be applied to literally any media, government, or educational institution? What are these bad ideas? Were the "russian bots" not caught spreading propaganda for both left and right groups?
Honestly though, where are these Russian thoughts permeating our thoughts and actions? Everyone keeps saying that the don is where it all goes down, but I haven't even seen the don post touch the front page in the last 3 months.
I said all social media. If anyone takes TD seriously, they have a screw loose.
But your co-worker Steve who's all about apple pie and AR-15's loooooves to parrot and believe what is being put out there to create dissonance on his FB and Twitter feed.
It's about implanting ideas into people who go "yea! I don't like those people anyway, let's go with that!" whether it's based in reality or not.
But 13 trolls placed some Facebook ads (mostly after the election btw) and it affected the Billions that Hillary spent (while not campaigning in the midwest) to make the election go to TRUMP.
Remember when you said the Russians didn't even intervene? Remember when you said everybody who believes Russia interfered is a shill? Remember when the President said this is all hogwash? Remember when you got the news that they really did and you changed your tactic to "but they didn't do that much".
Remember when you guys laughed about people saying Russians influence the gullible "low-intelligence" people on the_donald? You were pretty convinced this was all "shill-tactic" right?
Okay but Russian information troll farm the Internet Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s campaigns combine.
And that doesn't even count PACs.
Then what's your friggin point? The entire world influenced the election. Obama was flying air Force one around stumping for Hillary. The entire EU was spreading FUD about Trump. Saudi princes were Twitter fighting him
You think some trolls got anywhere near that level of influence? Gimme a break
I think that it's perfectly plausible that his posts are the exact kind of distrust the russian bots are supposedly spreading. There is no honest discussion with this guy, he tries to derail and troll on every trump related post.
Sounds like he is copying Shareblue tactics and using it against them. I totally understand where this guy is coming from, personally. They've mostly ruined the sub.
Uh yea, an American political organization with a known presence on social media and forums with this is way more likely than a bunch of "Russian trolls" who are fluent in english and care deeply about American politics.
Both are equally likely. If our own politians are to doing it for thier own advantage why would other governments? Especially Russia who aren't exactly know for playing nice on the world statge?
Yea, its equally likely that there are some Brazilian trolls here too. Why aren't you discussing them? What's with the focus on Russia? I think all the Red Scare propaganda has got people thinking illogically.
Except it isn't. Your refusal to even entertain the idea there's Russian trolls in the same vien as shareblue trolls says a lot about your bias. One's a fact and ones absolutely batsbit crazy, says a lot about your partisanship.
The Cold War has been over for a long time, but the media and its globalist handlers are trying to reignite it. The International Deep State and their ultra-wealthy globalists are 1000X more of a threat than Russia is. Sure, Russia isn't an ally, but you've got your priorities all wrong. Don't fall for their tricks and propaganda, please.
Oh i forgot that after decades of bad blood that it all disappears because we decided the cold war is over. If you don't think Russia and China and even European nation's have thier hands in here just as much as shareblue you're a fool. I can't blame you for thinking shreblues the bigger problem though, the enemy at home usually is more dangerous than the enemy abroad.
I'd be a fool if I said that no Russian/Chinese/Iranian whatever trolls ever come to English-speaking forums. I agree that they probably do. I, personally, think that their influence and presence is vastly overstated, and yes, that the enemy at home (and especially the international globalists and capitalists that have no allegiance to any country) are a much, much bigger threat. That's all.
Don't they do that already? I was banned from the cancerous tumor TwoXChromosomes (a sub I've never commented in) for simply commenting on a the_d post. I am not even a subscriber there either. This seems to be the new reddit.
Yes I know. Banning users who have never even posted in your sub or who have broken the rules off the sub seems somewhat insane. It would be like being banned from /r/news because you made a post in /r/conspiracy
I'm really curious to see how many of us who comment and post here will get banned. It's pretty unsettling to watch truth and unpopular opinions get people booted.
So what social network will everyone use if the top dogs of our favoured network crush freedom of speech?
At the rate we are going, it won't be long before we have to have some sort of chip implant into our brains, and if we think negatively or outside of the box we get fined or arrested (obviously I am over exaggerating, or am I?)
If they decide to ban users thinking they're bots but are actually human users, would you still sanction their bans? What if their process in determining who is/isn't a shill is that their talking points coincide with Russian talking points. Does that mean we should invalidate their opinions because we are afraid that human users have the same vale sets as Russians?
When it comes to detecting boys, I'd rather have 100 false negatives than 1 false positive
The posters on this sub are constantly claiming it's all shills downvoting them, driving the narrative, veering conversation. So which is it? Get rid for shills or let them continue shilling?
The worst manipulation comes from tinkering with the votes. So more transparency all around.
Show the vote counts again. If "shills" are being removed I'd like to see the account activity. How would "shills" be flagged? Which subs are left off of the frontpage/all, and why?
Everyone wants shills gone, but the issue is Reddit controls that then. What if they just say all these people are shills, but they are actually real people that have opposing ideas but say it was bots? What if they use it to only ban the shills they don't agree with?
It gives Reddit control to ban who they want while not having to explain it. They can just say it was "Russians" or "bots" and no one would be the wiser.
I've met plenty of people that are real life shills, parroting ideas without a critical thought applied. So no, sounds way more likely to be abused than be beneficial.
In what way is that interest conveyed? That they personally happen to like A certain Democrat? Or that they're paid by the Democrats? A Russian troll on the Kremlins payroll or just a foreign person who likes to stir shit in the US?
I agree, we shouldn't remove all shills, but vetting out only a couple dozen actual confirmed by the FBI foreign agents is a good thing, even for the conspiracy sub, we should recognize this as a positive
only a couple dozen actual confirmed by the FBI foreign agents
Sure, if it's proven. Whats the proof on their accounts? And will proof be provided in the future for those deemed as being shills?
We're on a conspiracy sub, so put on your conspiracy hat and try to entertain the thought:
- How could this policy be abused?
- Do people in power have a tendency to abuse that power when they stand to gain influence?
- Do you take everything authority says as the truth, or might the rules be applied unequally or with malicious intent?
They have distinctive posting patterns you could probably lock down using algorithms. As other people have mentioned, they will farm karma on a few sport or gaming related subs, before switching to hardcore political content. If that behaviour triggers a red flag on reddit's side, they can have somebody manually investigate the origins.
These people operate on procedure. They are employees after all, they have supervisors and they have rules. if we can lock down on their tactics then we can suppress their influence on the platform.
The idea here is though that they can ban anyone they want and just say they were "Russian Bots".
Oh, that guy that was posting all that incriminating stuff about the government and Reddit admins? Oh yeah, that was fake news. He was a Russian bot. Ignore him.
And everyone will go on their way thinking they did good.
The world used to view the diversity of beliefs to be a strength. Now they label and/or ban points of view that they disagree with or seem distasteful. If they keep this up, the only people left on Reddit will be those who agree with each other and those who have differing beliefs will move to a different platform where they share a community of like-minded contributors (like Steemit).
The problem is that once this happens on a large scale is that you end up with echo chambers of users who all share like-minded ideas. Any arguments deviating from the status quo becomes something to shun or ban. Because these communities do not allow opposing viewpoints progressive thinking stops. Instead, conversations turn inward and nobody questions anything anymore.
This is the exact kind of 'divide and conquer' technique used by oppressive governments since the creation of mass media. What is even more troubling is how many people seem completely OK with it because the media isn't run by "the government".
1900s: "You want an 8 hour day and a 40 hour week? You're fired. Enjoy living on the streets."
1910s: "Our soldiers are dying in the trenches and you're sapping morale on the homefront by saying the war is pointless. That's sedition!"
1920s: "The Bolsheviks are taking over. Socialists like you have to be removed!"
1930s: "How dare you suggest that the government and corporations caused the Great Depression!"
1940s: "Why should we fight the Germans? They're the only ones doing something about the Jews and the commies."
1950s: "Heard you whistled at a white woman. Boy, that's the last mistake of your life."
1960s: "Oh, that Martin Luther King. He's just a race-baiting agitator! I hope somebody does something about him."
1970s: "Anybody against the war in Vietnam is a coward and a traitor!"
1980s: "Who cares if a bunch of fags die of this gay disease? They brought it on themselves."
1990s: "Of course we don't want another Vietnam. That's why we need to censor our coverage of this Gulf War."
2000s: "Love it or leave it! If you don't let the government spy on you, the terrorists win!"
2010s: "The only good communist is a dead communist!"
2018: "The world used to view the diversity of beliefs to be a strength."
I know. Very American-centric timeline but I think the point stands.
I lived through or studied most of what you suggest there, but I am confused on your take on the 2010's. That quote seems more fitting for the 50's. I recall lots of talk of walls and borders, immigrants and the greatness of capitalism, but the hatred was directed more at brown people and terrorists than commies.
The bots were upvoting actual fake news, as in fake facts, not just personal beliefs or opinions. These "facts" were then spread all over social media leading people to believe fake things happened. There is nothing about beliefs, discussion or opinions being banned.
I had my account removed from reddit mobile app, and I had to re-link it. I do wonder if it’s due to my posting in a certain non-narrative approved sub.
Idk if it is because of this but my second account must’ve gotten banned because I can’t login with my correct credentials. I barley go on there but when I did it was just to say dumb shit.
Try getting a masstagger to see where people post and you will find some insanely sketchy accounts. Tons. Most are false positive, but there are so many sketchy shill accounts. I think it is nice to know who I am interacting with anyway.
It's not perfect because it acts as a catch all, but you can highlight the tag to see what they were flagged for and make you own calls. Redective is also useful for an overview of an account.
I believe that there are a lot of actual Russians trolls. Their banter is easy to spot when compared with normal conversation and discourse. It only seems logical that Reddit would figure this out as well and do something about it. This does not have to do with censoring different world views, only removing the weeds.
They have succeeded in twisting peoples perceptions enough to now completely disregard one of our most fundamental rights right under our noses and its pretty impressive.
I don't think people see much more than their social media accounts these days. There is an entire planet out there, full of riches, mysteries and beautiful things. On the flip side of course there are countless atrocities committed, starvation, degradation of peoples dignities etc.. that's the way it is. To impose an ideology on people that essentially tells them that there is a right way and a wrong way to think is worse than even the most horrendous thing a free thinking person could ever commit. They are trying to paralyze humankind.
We have truly lost a great deal here. We've lost the art that is human existence and with it the ability to learn and grow on our own accord and of our own mistakes, instead we have manufactured our own version of it and processed the entirety of natural substance out of it.
Not dissent to popular opinion because it’s hard to say what the popular opinion really is. Instead you will be banned for dissent to views deemed undesirable to reddit and whoever controls the reddit machine. Anyone could be an “other” at any point.
/u/EXXIT_ is rehashing an old TMOR talking point here.
I've been posting from the same handful of sources for a decade now (zerohedge, etc), and all of the sudden I'm a Russian propagandist!
One of the sources I use is journal-neo.com, partly because I like their content, and partly because TMOR gets whipped into a frenzy because they are convinced NEO is Russian propaganda and I'm getting paid to spread it (it's not and I'm not).
However, it's concerning to me that a comment in /r/conspiracy that's accusing the mods of being Russian propagandists (without any evidence!) gets 57 upvotes.
If you're going to accuse us of something so dramatic, you'd better be able to back it up otherwise you're guilty of propagating this manufactured and divisive hysteria.
I got accused of being a Russian bot after saying CNN and Fox News were equally bull shit. It was funny then but a little scarier now that reddit is "cracking down"
A lawsuit filed Tuesday lays out a tale of Trump allies, the White House and Fox News Channel conspiring to push a false story about Democratic leaks and an unsolved killing in order to distract attention from the Russia investigation that has been swirling around the president.
The press certainly bears some responsibility for Iraq but when your own government is fabricating evidence and planting witnesses it must be more complex than "MSM bad".
A free press is vital for society so I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is wise.
Bull Binney is talking out his ass. I know your appeal to authority is bullshit so its irrelevant how many opinion pieces you post.
"In short, the theory is flawed," said FireEye's John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye, a firm that provides forensic analysis and other cybersecurity services.
"The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims."
I thought his answer was well put and logical. Does that make me a Russian too? What's the criteria you're using to accuse fellow Americans of being traitors?
You either seek the truth, or you're one of those trying to hide it.
he did not. Neither adam carter nor the Forensicator ever walked back a thing. If anything they delved deeper into the metadata to make the proof that Guccifer2.0 was a plant (made to appear like a leak), likely from the DNC through its Crowdstrike IT hit men, essentially bullet-proof.
The one thing we know for sure is that there was deep collusion between the DNC and Crowdstrike, with the FBI agreeing to look the other way (no checky of no servers). Just as the DC MPD agreed 9were forced) to not investigate the Seth Rich assassination..
We know the leaker downloaded the information onto a flash drive. It wasn't a hack at all. There's plenty of evidence proving Seth Rich was the Wikileaks source. Julian Assange all but admitted to it when he offered a reward for tips related to the murder.
Seth Rich is a topic that always brings the shills out in force, which only validates my beliefs about his murder.
You know your position is flawed and your points erroneous when a simple question of "can you provide a source" sets you off an a ridiculous tirade in an effort to deflect the scrutiny away from you.
1.) You don't know that, you are basing it on your own co convictions and lack of critical thinking. If I see an incorrect or biased article, I will tell you exactly where they are wrong, and then I will make the claim that they are biased and are "propaganda".
2.) I've heard plenty of these conspiracy theories heavy conservatives and alt righters have put out, but none of them have ever been corroborated or backed up. They are simply stating whatever they feel like and people like you eat them up without ever thinking independently.
I read the Daily Mail link and this was CNN's comment.
A CNN spokeswoman told the Daily Mail Online the emails are 'completely unremarkable'.
'When preparing for interviews we are regularly sent suggestions from rival campaigns and political parties, both solicited and unsolicited,' she said.
'Casting a wide net to ensure a tough and fair interview isn't just common media practice, it's smart.'
Do you have any proof that this is not standard practice? For example, that Fox News never did this with RNC? How do we find out, since Wikileaks and Russia only released DNC emails and we don't have RNC emails to read?
Do you think RNC emails will show no "media collusion" as you call it?
When even Fox News that jumps on anything anti-Demoract won't post anything that you can use as a source, that says everything about your so-called sources. The same Fox News that ran the fake Seth Rich Wikileaks story.
The government (deep state) is what is directly influencing the media via the CIA. Research project mockingbird. Media talking points are all handed out from a single point of contact. When people mention the words "free press" they sure aren't referring to any of these gov controlled propaganda institutions.
the two primary govt mouth pieces were nyt judith miller and tom friedman, were both passing direct information from rumsfeld and cheney, under the guise of investigative reporting, without any investigating. i dont mean, "sources say," i mean "i'm in iraq and here's what i see." judith miller got a pulitzer for lying. chris hedges, also nyt, really did do investigative journalism and reported that miller and friedman and the admisitration were wrong. he was fired. never rehired. he know has a great show on RT that has gotten him, along with lee camp, branded russian operatives.
phil donahue had guests on who had direct knowledge of the bs of the WMD lie, he refused to stop airing shows critical of the iraq war build up and was fired. never rehired. his time slot went to rachel maddow.
so...yeah, the MSM wasn't duped, the MSM was a willing participant in deception.
we've never had trustworthy, free and fair presses. yellow, jingoistic news is more american than apple pie. hearst made a lot of money selling the maine false flag.
Spicer, who quit the White House earlier this month, confirmedto National Public Radio’s David Folkenflik that in April he met Rod Wheeler, a longtime Fox News contributor, and the Republican donor Ed Butowsky, and that they informed him about an investigation they were conducting into Rich’s death.
Several of there reporters were implicated for collusion in hillary emails.
No, the reporters contacted her campaign about a story they were going to publish anyway so they can add the comment to the story. They do it with all news subjects, including Fox News with Republicans.
Seth Rich was behind the DNC email leaks. That's plainly obvious to anyone who spends the time to research it. His murder had nothing to do with a botched robbery because nothing was stolen. His murder has all of the marks of a professional hit.
The DNC would love for the Seth Rich story to go away, but eventually more evidence will come out. Seth Rich was murdered, and I'll bet the orders came from someone at the top of the DNC.
CNN and Fox are both bad, but not equally bad imo. Studies have verified this as well tbh, Fox News makes you LESS informed than watching nothing, which is pretty sad. They both lie and manipulate the truth, but Fox definitely does so to a greater degree.
Although, you really shouldn't be watching cable news at all tbh.
I’ve seen the study he’s referencing and you clearly have seen the study he’s referencing since you commented to refute it. So transitively I think we can both agree we are talking about the same thing. So while I could ask him to provide sources, we already know his source. Now I’m asking because you’re making points with no commonly known source.
Complains about biased study and then links hugely republican biased organization that, among other things, is trying to eliminate the need to reveal political donor identities, yeah, seems legit.
So you're gonna go with the one Pew study from 2007? Because that's the only study I can find going that way.
I can find about a dozen going the other way, including one published in a peer-reviewed economics journal in 2015. That study found that Fox News viewers were more knowledgeable about pro-Republican topics, but less knowledgeable about pro-Democrat topics in a way that actually averaged out to zero.
The other issue is that this wasn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, but Fox News vs. CNN. That same study found that viewers who relied solely/primarily on Fox News scored lower than individuals who relied solely/primarily on CNN.
I’m dead ass serious when I say this. My co worker has been stressed and dealing with anxiety for a while, her doctor told her not to watch CNN anymore (her normal news channel) because they literally only talk about bad shit. She said he referred to it as “doom and gloom”. She stopped watching and her anxiety has died down. Take that how y’all will but it’s an honest to god story.
I believe it. Watching the news at all is linked to higher levels of anxiety. The world is a shitty place. So is regularly viewing Facebook and listening to Christmas music.
What a ridiculous load of bullshit. FOX and CNN are both bad, but no one is worse than CNN. They are basically the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party at this point, and cannot be taken with any level of seriousness.
That sounds like propaganda, and I don't buy it for a second. I wouldn't trust any so called, "study" without following the money behind it. There's no significant difference between the quality of their programming. Their views on the issues are different, and that's what tends to dictate who watches their shows.
They do more research than just reports and comments by users. The admins can easily find out where accounts are connecting from. This is circumvented by VPN of course but they can also track activity and frequency that align with some known accounts. Also, if what OP claims is true they would have used that logic to crush the_donald saying all the moderators were Russian operatives. Peter Thiel would never let that happen and the sad truth is that sub is Poe’s law like a motherfucker.
Hahaha, oh my sweet summer child. Here is the exchange which got me banned from r/news this morning:
[–]todayilearned83 285 points 23 hours ago
I've banned a number of them from this sub
[–]Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 66 points 23 hours ago
What signs do you look for when looking for them? Do they frequently phrase stuff in a similar way?
[–]todayilearned83 116 points 23 hours ago
I'm not going to tell them how they're messing up, but I will tell you I look for patterns and phrasing is one of them.
[–]Natas_Enasni 0 points 58 minutes ago
I love that dumbfuck mods are basically admitting they ban people for phrasing things weirdly. Also, isn't Reddit a website on the internet, which people from all over the world can connect to? Why do you think it's ok to ban people for speaking oddly?
I have no doubt mods will abuse this because mods can be so easily corrupted by the power they have over their communities. I was talking about site wide, admin handled bans and IP bans. Those are reviewed and tracked. Flagged a few for myself when I noticed the same account spamming the headlines from RT and Infowars over and over and most but not all have gone dark since 2018 started.
I love that dumbfuck mods are basically admitting they ban people for phrasing things weirdly. Also, isn't Reddit a website on the internet, which people from all over the world can connect to? Why do you think it's ok to ban people for speaking oddly?
Mods even on here will permaban people for posting something like that based on Rule 10 of the sub, so I don't know why you're acting surprised on being banned and why you're complaining.
I'm not complaining about the ban, look at the attitude of the mod. They sound like something out of this subreddits comment section: "Oh they phrased that weird, obviously a russian bot". It's idiotic to think someone could get banned because english is their second language; or the idea that no one from Russia can participate in reddit comment threads without being employed by the FSB.
I don't think they really think you're a Russian bot, I think half the comments are tongue in cheek there, if you did not attack the mods you probably would not have been banned so easily. You just gave them an easy justifiable(to other mods, if you appeal) reason to ban you.
Again, maybe someone can run an experiment where they make posts like yours, but not attack the mods like you did, and then check if they get banned. Your case is tainted because you broke the sub's rules against mod attacks.
fox doesn't bill itself as unbiased. you know what you are going to get if you watch fox. cnn bills itself as neutral, as above the fray. it is not. cnn is the more dangerous of the two for that reason.
I know how it feels to have your own opinion, I've been banned for brigading and all sorts off ridiculous shit just for showing an alternate view point. They are even making the word alternate (alt) a negative term now!!! Alt right, alt left, they now associate alternative with terrorism.
I stated that I think its gross how Biden is always so touchy with women of all ages, especially young girls. His ego is so big he does disturbing things in plain sight.
How do you feel about Trump's sexual harassment, assault, paying prostitutes for sex, trying to fuck his friends wife? If you're sickened by Biden being a hugger but not an actual sexual preditor, the that sick feeling is you your mental disease.
It's not a rediculious assumption when you attack an honorable guy, with no history other than being a little touchy over a guy with a laundry list of accusers and self incriminating statements.
Maybe they'll look at other things, like voting frequency and ip addresses. If it is then I hope it's applied fairly to all trolls, not just "Russian" ones.
I hear you, people need to hear different ideas and playing the devils advocate can really show you different view points.
I know how reddit has been changing and they are trying to have so much control that I know that they have an agenda. We need to have an alternative to reddit. voat.co could be a possibility but there are a lot of trolls there. I think in the future people will be going back to message boards, Reddit is just turning to shit. It's not what it used to be.
Because the Alt in alt-right means that you're more right than far-right. It's extremist in nature. Adding the fact that alt-right so have literally been committing mass murder and Kelly Ann Conway dubbed the term Alternative facts to try and justify lies and you get your answer.
I can't find a single pop culture reference to the phrase before this, and if there is it certainly wouldn't change my point and the fact would remain that she popularized it. Being pedantic and disingenuous won't change actual facts.
"Alternative facts" is a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the PresidentKellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer "utter[ed] a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[1]
Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" to describe demonstrable falsehoods was widely mocked on social media and sharply criticized by journalists and media organizations, including Dan Rather, Jill Abramson, and the Public Relations Society of America. The phrase was extensively described as Orwellian. Within four days of the interview, sales of the book 1984 had increased by 9,500%, which The New York Times and others attributed to Conway's use of the phrase, making it the number-one bestseller on Amazon.com.[2]
Being pedantic and disingenuous won't change actual facts.
I'm not sure what you mean by that... but anyways sorry, I mean "Alt-right" where did that term start? Was it a self proclaimed term or a negative concoction of sorts? I remember that whole alternative facts in the news... crazy stuff.
I got called a Russian bot on Twitter for explaining how net neutrality isn't necessary, didn't exist prior to 2014, and that I don't have it in Canada but the internet is fine. No counter-argument was provided.
I love Fox News for the entertainment. Same as Rush. And they are part of my main man’s propaganda machine. No doubt. It’s obvious. All us Trumpsters know this. We just like listening to it because it’s nice being on top again!
But the "spy" working closest with Trump's campaign wasnt a "Russian Spy" like the media says.. He was an American Spy who spent time spying on Russians.... Somehow that is "collusion".. Also... There were secret deals with the Obama administration and Hillaries people with the Russians over uranium deals. U.s. uranium from massive state lands was given to Russian interests literally by them.
"Anyone who supports the president is a Racist-Nazi-Sexist!!" You are just fueling the fire buddy. People are sick and tired of the lefts bullshit. That pendulum has been swinging to the right fast and faster.
This is why I am very anti-censorship. You want to know why people continue to fall for this propaganda? Because we have never been encouraged to think for ourselves. Our go to has always been reporting any information we find repulsive to an authority so it can be neatly removed. People can't ignore what they don't like anymore, they have to see it completely removed. We also can't judge reality for ourselves, we need an authority to "fact-check" and let us know what's okay to believe.
Censoring opinions like republican, democrat, independent or whatever is bad. But censoring things like users from /r/the_donald saying things like http://archive.is/aKdzj#selection-3213.0-3220.0 Where a person calls for a parkland survivor to be hung, is perfectly acceptable.
Outrageously offensive posts and calls for death or violence should be removed (and taken seriously and investigated, as that would have stopped the Parkland shooter), I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as it swings both ways, as there are far left subs practically dedicated to violence that are still kicking while
Reddit is going to has been using this "Elimination of Russian troll accounts" as a way of shadowbanning/deleting any accounts that show dissent to the popular opinion.
What proof do you have (beyond your general distrust and paranoia) to show this is their agenda, or have shown this behavior previously (using Russian Trolls) as a pretext to shadowban people?
BC if you don't have evidence, your assertion means squat.
I can't believe low effort conspiracies get traction just because they go along with a pro-Trump narrative, but anything that is anti-Trump, even if it's a 3 page essay of conspiracy will get downvoted. This sub is trash sometimes.
You've really got to look at this through the lens of a cult.
-Look at Scientology: The entire group of ideas are made up by people with clear psychological problems and a desire for power. Many words are created out of thin air or defined however they feel like defining them. Members are ostracized for questioning the faith, and people who try to stop them are attacked.
-Look at Modern Feminism: The entire group of ideas are made up by people with clear psychological problems and a desire for power. Words are created out of thin air or defined however they feel like defining them. Members are aggressively ostracized for questioning the group, and people who try to stop them are attacked.
-Now look at modern social media culture: The group has defined it's values based, significantly, on the modern feminism from above. Words are defined however they feel like defining them. Narratives, with very little factual support, are built up and held as absolute truth. Questioning anything from within the group leads to ostracism and, thus, a desire to toe the line. Objections lead to being aggressively attacked. Direct opposition is (beginning to be) banned entirely.
This is a pattern. We've weaponized cultism. The longer I watch this happen the less I believe it's organic and the more I truly believe we're being played like pawns on a grand chessboard.
The cabal is doing a full court press trying to get the censorship ready to go. They are afraid damaging leaks are coming next and they want to silence any dissent for the upcoming elections. It's too late. I believe the overton window has shifted and people just need some real deal physical evidence or results shown on TV then the revolution is on and popping.
Complain about it and get the expected response "Found the Russian troll" ...."but it was a joke, you shouldn't be taking this seriously, don't ruin my mood"
If they ban The_Donald then I’m going to be seriously rethinking spending my time on Reddit. I can understand banning users who incite violence or actually break rules, but banning a whole sub? Fuckthat. Coontown and fatpeoplehate, as disgusting subs as they were, deserved a voice. It’s free speech ffs. As long as you aren’t inciting violence or spreading other people’s information I don’t see the issue; it’s just Reddit saying “Hey you’re banned for being bad for my bottom line”
Yeah. Pretty sure everyone except liberal retards sees this coming.
I asked in Spez's thread "Since you are coming out saying you are going to take action against propaganda, can we at least know what the working definition of propaganda is going to be?"
HAHAHA If Reddit and Twitter start banning shadow accounts or troll accounts or (insert lingo here) they'll have nothing to inflate their numbers and cheat their advertisers.
I can't stand leftists or T_D supporters. They're two slightly different smelling assholes. If you completely align to either political party I immediately question your critical thinking skills. I mean you're playing the fucking game at that point. Last thing they'd want is unity.
considering Trump stole the republican party and spent the 60s 70s and up to 87 as a Democrat...Supporting Trump isn't exactly 'partisan'. He's the most centrist Candidate we've had in a while...Even was willing to sign almost a 2million dollar DACA deal while running on 'Ban the immigrants!!!!'
Haha I give credit where it's deserved. He's all over the place but definitely doing his own thing. I don't know the last good candidate. Ron Paul was my boy for awhile. At least he's a physician and not a damn lawyer too. I dunno, I just hate seeing america so divided, even more so. Never will everyone be happy either though. Sucks for us average people right?
I was extremely thrilled to hear his vocal support of mental health support and the idea that some people can violate their ability to own guns because of known threats. I think everyone should be able to own a gun...and I think if you openly threaten to kill someone your ability to own that gun should go away as soon as possible. This may result in more 'spontaneous' murders as people learn not to 'broadcast' which creates another problem to deal with. I don't think it's a never ending cycle it's just that a multi-pronged solution is necessary. Improving the overal mental health of our youth should be our Nation's number one priority. What sort of future are we to lead if our children are...well...Fucked in the head?
I agree with all of that. Well said. You're a good example of a level headed trump supporter! If someone gets caught exposing themselves they get put on the sex offender list. If someone makes threats of any kind they should be barred from owning. Guns aren't toys. I live in Texas I know all too well. I love guns lol. They were doing protests by my house walking around with AR-15s over their shoulders. Scares people but they're just pro gun guys, not nut jobs. People sometimes can't differentiate enthusiasts from fanatics. I think we have the same set of values for the most part. That makes me happy lol.
most people have the same sets of values...at least in America. It's why Trump is going to continue to do well and gain in popularity. He really is centrist about everything. The Democrats are just full blown commies at this point and well..Republicans are basically the same as Democrats just slightly different masters...and 'maybe goals'...but the goal always seems to be War so..
I'm not a fan of him lol. He's so unpredictable I can't figure him out. I guess it's because he doesn't align with traditional parties. It's scary though. I don't like that he's failed to appoint ambassadors and is hurting our international image.
Honestly, I think the root of the problem is the federal reserve. We were warned about having a centralized bank and political parties. It gives them complete control and divides us. We do all have the same set of morals and values basically. I think the problem is the dems and reps are too busy calling each other names and having their thumbs up their asses. I'm a bit idealistic about a better united future but I'm also realistic lol.
I wish more people would talk to Trump supporters without the presumption they're some white supremacist idiot. Same with the dems. I enjoy talking to all sorts of people. How else can you really know someone lol. More people should try to be the bridge between opposing opinions.
He's taking on the Uniparty. He HAS to be unpredictable but imagine a classic liberal mindset with a dirty mouth.
And what's going on right now can only be handled by someone extremely flamboyant and thick skinned imo..literal upheaval of power in terms of elite-peasant class.
eh I mean Our money is tied to banks whether we like it or not. I'm less concerned about who's in charge, more interested in what's inside, of the federal reserve. or an audit if you will.
At least he loves America, and he isn't afraid to say it. After 8 years of a President that seemed anti-American at times, a little patriotism is a welcome change.
leftists dont generally align to the dem party, we consider it too corporatist and want more bernie types in it. You are thinking of partisan democrats or many neoliberals
Ole $27 Bernie. He's like the anti-Robin Hood. Took money from the poor and gave it to the DNC after they fucked him good and left him a little tip as hush money.
Lol after a quick search on your profile I learned that you defend the colonizing ass hats who took land from the real South Americans. Maybe If the Dutch stayed where they were from and didn’t pillage rape and teal for the land they have now they wouldn’t be persecuted but nah they had to fuck it up for themselves. You probably believe in white genocide too. Lmao good day.
Do you realize how ironic it is for you to say that the Dutch were fleeing because of persecution yet when they got to South Africa they did the exact same thing. Systematically. For years. Do you know what apartheid was? That would NEVER had happened if white people could have stayed out of South Africa. The tea is exceptionally good today. 🤫☕️🐸
No the original "colonists" were Dutch and French people escaping religious persecution. They filled a gap left over when the Portuguese illness whipped out the Khoisan. The British were afraid that the Dutch would get to wealthy so they took over the cape. The Dutch still wanting to be free fled into the interior where they made a deal with the zulus for land. A deal that the zulus backed out off and slaughtered the Dutch who were forced to fight back. Isn't history fun?
You must really suffer from cognitive dissonance if you fail to acknowledge the Dutch started slavery there and are directly responsible for it. God forbid they don’t pillage people’s land and then claim to have made it a better place. How does it even make sense that white people own 70%+ farm land in South Africa?! That’s not right and karma is coming back for those who wrongly stole land. I’m white and I’m all for it. Karma is a bitch! Lol
Haha I just don’t like to debate with a brick wall. You’re repeating the same fallacies, you aren’t acknowledging the links that provide facts you’re refuting, and you’re bringing up irrelevant points that don’t really have anything to do with the fact that the Dutch were the first to enslave black people in South Africa and didn’t do much to help them. Haha little rascal of a man! Or woman idk what you are not that it matters. Cognitive dissonance has definitely gotten to ya. Best wishes.
Refer to the link. It explains it and actively debunks you’re asinine statements regarding it. Reading is a very useful tool especially when debating someone that knows more about the subject than you. I’m even offering you resources to help you but you’re just digging a bigger hole for yourself. But I get the vibe that you either don’t care or don’t grasp that concept and that’s okay. Some of us are a little denser than others
Or I could send a link that debunks your unfounded statements but that’s assuming your attention span allows you to read more than a few sentences at a time. It’s okay. Read away.
Rather than being just opinions, those accounts were posting and voting up actual fake news. For an example in this very sub check this very highly upvoted article and it's source.
It might hurt a lot of people like you on here because articles like promote your extremely biased agenda, but I am happy that fake facts(not opinions) will have less traction thanks to fewer bot votes.
Notice how the focus is only Russian bots. I'm sure there are many corporate bots and bots sponsored by other governments spamming twitter and Reddit as well. They can't ban them all or else numbers would take a hit but banning just Russia might not hurt them too much.
There aren't too many federal investigations currently going on involving complex misinformation campaigns perpetrated by "corporate and other" bots. Do you really not understand why?
I understand why. It is very convenient to have a common enemy for the people to rally behind. This has always been a great way to motivate large groups. If the media constantly talked about all of the it operations then it would seem like a non issue and people would lose interest. But focus all efforts on one group, one country and you can rally people.
For the record I want justice served and Russia should be held accountable for this travesty. But a ton of foreign money influenced these electrons and the people responsible should be held accountable too. Efforts run by super pacs to manipulate voters was called astroturfing because it was so common and they pretended to have grass roots origins. Orgs like correct the record which flooding social media with propaganda are a prime example. No one should be let off the hook just because targeting Russia is the most convenient way to unite the country against a common enemy and potentially take out our idiot president at the same time.
But I get it, we can't focus on everyone or else people might not care enough to do anything. So we focus on one or two bad guys and maybe some progress will get made.
Money in politics is clearly a huge problem and has shown to quickly subvert the will of the poeple so we need to address that obviously but Russia attacking our democracy and infiltrating multiple branches of our government using psy ops is a more urgent existential threat. Dark money played a big part in that and also needs to be addressed.
Not if they don't ban their own bots.
They didn't say they'll ban them all, just the one that are problematic.
Afaik, catpcha has not been beaten.
Add that, and bots would die at their next check.
It's known, but it doesn't always get reported to upper management. You have lower level executives counting on numbers, so the reports to the top are usually a bit filtered. I once had to move numbers from a traffic spike due to DOS attacks into general traffic so management could report a redesign as a huge success. While it was live, the site never matched those numbers again.
It's not only Reddit though, just about anyone that doesn't conform to the "popular" opinion on anything is drummed up as surely being connected to Russia by all mass media.
Is there a way to make sure this is indeed what they do? Because people, we need to get RID of the bots, especially foreign, but stateside too. But I also agree this needs to be done using an open process wherin some form of "Voigt-Kampf" test is issued and transcribed(in this case meaning something as simple as 'Did this account post something aggressive at the exact second they were allowed to post, reaching max capacity like clockwork?' All these corporate leaders are all about Open A.I. -- We should start an "OpenAnalog" showing human mediated solutions to dealing with digital weaponization in our social networks and what not... Maybe something like this already exists?
Its the first time in a long time that someone they didn't want to be president in the US won. He is exposing a lot of their corruption intentionally and unintentionally. They can't let that happen again.
I’d say the shills are the idiot leftists who want to blame their loss on Russia and accuse all with whom they disagree of being “Russian shills”. Remember, the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked.
I love how when there is an actual massive conspiracy unfolding in the public eye involving government corruption and collusion, the people of this subreddit dismiss it. Y'all are like conspiracy hipsters and russiagate is too mainstream for you
It's really a purist thing I think. It didn't originate here so it's bullshit. People here don't trust anything but themselves so when there's a conclusion they didn't come to it must be propaganda.
they are using this to try to target one specific subreddit that they don't like, T_D.
That's it, they don't mention that russians were supposedly in /politics working FOR Bernie's campaign against Hillary or that russians were behind many anti-Trump protests and posts in there as well.
No, this is purely a move by one side to silence those they don't agree with.
If they talk about Russians in /politics, they'll have to answer for letting CTR and Share Blue run wild all over that sub. Because spez did say "propaganda both foreign and otherwise". So that's not going to happen.
Why do I keep seeing this? Stop equating pro-establishment neoliberals as the "hard progressive left" Conservatives have more in common with them than progressives. Stop demonizing potential allies against the system.
You sweet summer child. The method of implementation is much more subtle, pervasive and fucked up than you can imagine.
For the most part, the Russians stick to memes and news reposts. But when you're a native English speaker, there's a whole world of pms and social interaction to exploit. You can push buttons, stalk a particular user for weeks down voting everything they say, have several other...colleagues... join in to express incredulity that someone could possibly hold such ridiculous ideas...you can isolate them and emotionally devour them in the background using the psychology of the upvote, appeal to numbers.
By making every attempt to engage in ideas that before may have started heated discussion and a flood of random 2 cents now an imminent round of insults, incredulity, repetition of the same basic definitions that you've repeated countless times the last time you posted, you make your fellow man into an object of anxiety and fear.
The digging is relentless, and always cast with the implication that you brought it on Yourself. Look,you've got 5 down votes and 3 people at once sitting on 15 upvotes calling you ridiculous and accusing you of harming whatever your given movement is by holding such ideas - clearly the problem must be you not them right? But the response just seemed so rude and personal... but clearly the community thought it was reasonable to react in such a way, and why should I expect some rando off the Internet to engage with me as if we're in real life? Its the internet, gotta let it slide off your back, sticks and stones.
That works the first few weeks. But your monkey brain can't stop analyzing those numbers of aproval and disproval, the character of the responses and the consistency....every time. The repetitive conditioning that when you post, your ideas invite disdain and the community is united in their incredulity becomes the expectation.
Extend it naturally.
Offline
That must mean when i speak,
everyone
Is mocking me in their heads.
But you dont engage with people like that! You try not to be a dick, you dont just needlessly ridicule others or present their crazy unpopular idea as a representation of their general worth - but that must just be how society has evolved, and you were one of the weak who was so thick you never saw them laughing behind your back.
You question where humanity has gone, and if there is any hope at all, any point in trying to make a better world if this is how we will treat each other.
So you unsubscribe from the democratic socialists mailing list. You never go to their meetings, or help them organize. You probably skip voting - what's the point?
Or maybe you go the darker route, and vow to adapt... It's every man for himself, now. If society wants to treat you like a marginalized piece of shit, you'll join the other marginal pieces of shit then. You won't be weak again, because now you've learned the truth of what human nature is, and it requires rethinking your entire approach to how society should and ought to functuon.
Will mods ban accounts on their subreddits? yes. Reddit shadowbanning accounts simply because they're disagreeing, is how forums die. Reddit isn't stupid
Does this apply accounts for Americans who have a dissenting opinion about our system?
Are we all supposed to get behind the winning team, voice Pro American sentiments?
All we are doing is confirming to the other 7 billion people stuck on this planet with us is that the United States is the problem. How to Lose Friends and Influence people to hate you.....
This is dumb. The one credibly real, well organized, large scale conspiracy to come out since the Iran Contra and r/conspiracy is dedicated to calling it false.
Not really a conspiracy if you do it openly. Dump a bunch of weapons and bombs on a spot, shit it's going to kick off. That was the strategy the whole time and was pretty obvious.
Remember when Hillary got chucked into a van like a side of beef And didn’t campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan?
Remember when 70-year-old Donald Trump outplayed career politicians in the Republican primaries and then went on to win the election even though the entire media was against him yeah that must’ve been because of the Russians.
Remember when you kept on posting remember when stuff but wouldn’t just admit the fact that your candidate was terrible and that’s why she lost?
I don't think this stops at reddit. This "russia" "sowing discord" thing is leading to mass censorship! Just wait. Any voice of reasonable dissent will be labeled a Russian troll and blocked.
I never understand banning accounts. Can't you just create a new account? It takes like 7 seconds. I have about 30 accounts. Why do people act like their dog died when their account gets deleted I honestly don't get it
Why are Americans so racist against people of Russian ethnicity? I thought this country accepted all cultures? Is it because most Russian people have a pale white complexion?
According to hysterical liberals, everyone who disagrees with them is a Russian election meddling troll. These delusional retards are fighting an imaginary war with Russia and losing. How stupid do you have to be to lose an imaginary war?
They don't have to be buddy buddy, they both profit from the mass surveillance so it makes sense both would seek it in whichever way possible.
I'm sure Russia has internet trolls, as I'm sure every other country meddles in every other country's business. Welcome to geopolitics. Russia's influence seems to be incredibly overblown. I'd be incredibly surprised if China didn't have a similar influence, as well as many of our allies. Everyone has a stake in the U.S election, they'd be stupid to not try and interfere. We're just using Russia as the current boogeyman as the middle east has been largely pacified and we always need an enemy.
Meh, get yourself a masstagger with RES and you would be surprised the kind of accounts that get flagged. Mostly false positives, but there are fuckloads of shill accounts that look insanely sketchy.
I get the blanket of everyone wants to interfere with the US. However, as I said earlier, Russia is the country that is currently dominating that space. And Russia is the one country we still have a wealth of trade deals on hold with because of sanctions and our foreign policy.
Clearly all of Flynn's sketchy doings didn't stretch before Trump picked him. Not like Obama's admin gave advice to not hire the guy as he as previously fired.
Page plead guilty to a count of conspiracy against the US. I believe there were some others named but that is the one that comes to mind. Same dude who has FISA surveillance renewed on him for what like 2 years before he was hired by Trump. Manafort got caught up in paperwork initially but I think he has other charges on him now.
In this case I'm fairly certain said manager knew about his employee's skeletons but still hired him anyways.
Pretty sure that whole conspiracy against the US is the Russian meddling charge you keep asking for. And as I said earlier, gotta wait til the end of the investigation before claiming no charges exist.
lol you guys are so fucking retarded. None of those companies have done anything extreme or violated anyone's free speech. The reason they generally have a left-leaning bias is because their audience is generally left-leaning, and they have advertisers that want to target that audience. Your dumbass views aren't being censored they're just unpopular outside your echo chambers.
So you don’t know? But I thought you said there was collusion?
No one knows exactly how far it goes...
All we know is that it goes so far that Trump is still hiding his tax returns, his appointees have all committed crimes by hiding the meeting, and Mueller has 5 indictments and counting.
You can't name any other investigation with that much incriminating evidence in all of US history.
If reddit was censoring on behalf of the government they would be censoring liberal subs wouldn't they? Republicans control basically the entire government. They are the establishment now.
Oh yea, give me an actual historical example that hasn't almost immediately been found out or had their power structures eroded? Hashassins? Jacobins? Every aristocracy ever? How about the Hapsbergs they actually did manage to consoladate and then bred themselves out of existence? Don't confuse intelligence communities for secret power structures, read more history.
If you think the idea of a "deep state" isn't conpletely in line with human nature and every single piece of documentation we have about huiman nature for the last 3000+ years, then you are a fool.
The concept is inline with human nature, the "in-practice" it not being throughly shared and common knowledge is impossible.
The lack of available evidence and documentation in a world with infinite examples of such evidence getting out, would suggest the impracticality of your hypothesis.
The strategic enemy of my democratically elected officials; ergo enemies of me, a citizen. The US isnt a kingdom buddy we handled that issue a few hundred years ago.
How do you feel about Trump's sexual harassment, assault, paying prostitutes for sex, trying to fuck his friends wife? If you're sickened by Biden being a hugger but not an actual sexual preditor, the that sick feeling is you your mental disease.
So then really your argument is that web forums are either more important than the government, or should be run by a government body? I disagree on both these viewpoints for a few reasons, more importantly, Reddit is privately owned and matter-of-factly doesn't owe you or your viewpoints shit. I'm not happy with that being reddits future, and you can do whatever you want with that information, but at the end of the day thats how it is.
I’m dead ass serious when I say this. My co worker has been stressed and dealing with anxiety for a while, her doctor told her not to watch CNN anymore (her normal news channel) because they literally only talk about bad shit. She said he referred to it as “doom and gloom”. She stopped watching and her anxiety has died down. Take that how y’all will but it’s an honest to god story.
most people have the same sets of values...at least in America. It's why Trump is going to continue to do well and gain in popularity. He really is centrist about everything. The Democrats are just full blown commies at this point and well..Republicans are basically the same as Democrats just slightly different masters...and 'maybe goals'...but the goal always seems to be War so..
907 comments
1 Grinfader 2018-03-06
Dear reddit/facebook admins, 1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction, entertainment, not a handbook
1 Hardboiledcop 2018-03-06
It was supposed to be a warning.
1 staiano 2018-03-06
Warning to us, playbook the them :(
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Remember though: its ok if they do this to Republicans. We dont like Republicans and therefore its ok to use fascist tactics against them.
But if they do it to US then theyve gone too far.
1 qualityproduct 2018-03-06
First they came for...... something something something
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
First they came for Reddit accounts that overtly showed usage tied to robotic automation, then they came for something something something, step 3: ???, then there was no !RemindMe
1 RemindMeBot 2018-03-06
Defaulted to one day.
I will be messaging you on 2018-03-07 20:07:52 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
But they didnt? They only banned some shareblue accounts.
The other thousands are still in r politics and r conspiracy pushing lies and Russian talking points
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
No one said their system is infallible and will immediately catch all the accounts. You start with the worst offenders, then work you way down to less obvious accounts.
Not that I don't believe you - lots of people are using robot automation for these purposes - but your theory would be alot more solid if you specifically cited users who violate this.
That is why so many of the T_D bots got banned, because people took the time to document their automation beyond a reasonable doubt.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
They come and go.
Weve gotten hundreds of shareblue bots banned.
But shareblue has 40 million dollars and we dont.
So its kind of hard to take on the party of money.
But theres no question that democrat bots HEAVILY influenced the election
1 staiano 2018-03-06
1 a1s2d3f4g5t 2018-03-06
actually it was supposed to be a commentary on post war england. the original title was 1948. orwell's publisher made him change it.
people forget that orwell was an informant. he spied on his fellow writers and reported them to britain's version of HUAC. he knew what he was talking about...firsthand...
in one sense, it is good that it was shifted to the future, people are more receptive to warnings, than admonitions, but it also meant that people have kidded themselves into thinking 1984 was always on the horizen, when it was here all along, for going on 70 years. the lunancy of people living through HUAC and the red scare and not realizing 1984 was already real.
1 Legend017 2018-03-06
It was also the government. Reddit is not.
1 russianbot01 2018-03-06
You think spez is doing this all himself? They wacked his co-founder of course he is gonna fall in line after that. Who else is obsessed with media control?
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Yeah, for a conspiracy sub people seem to forget about Swartzs shady death.
1 HashCatchEm 2018-03-06
I wonder if he commited suicide or got suicided.
1 irondumbell 2018-03-06
1 Dr_Dornon 2018-03-06
You don't think the government has any control over Reddit? I mean, they control Google and Facebook to some degree. Look what the government did to the other creator of Reddit when he wouldn't jump when they said jump.
1 lf11 2018-03-06
How many people with deep government connections help to run Reddit? You don't have to be a government agency to function as a government patsy.
1 DrTeaHC 2018-03-06
(((They))) do not care
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
Reddit is a private company you sponge.
1 DrTeaHC 2018-03-06
A private company that relies on government tax funded infrastructure to exist.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
So like every entity on the planet in some form or another. Don’t speak nonsense.
1 DrTeaHC 2018-03-06
The first amendment isn't nonsense. Without the US tax payers money building the infrastructure for the Internet to exist in the first place these "public forums" wouldn't exist. If you're piggybacking off of the US government you should be bound to its laws like every other entity. If bakers have to cook cakes for whiney gays then reddit should have to put up with stupid Trump supporters. How would you feel if I banned all your stupid opinions on every platform. How would you feel if you couldn't speak your mind on twitter,facebook,reddit,youtube, etc? How would you feel If you couldn't even host your own website to display your opinions without a bunch of neurotic fucks crying until you get shut down. This shut down of public discourse is what leads to divides which end in violence. People you can't talk to are enemies.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
Except sexual orientation is a federally protected class, being a Russian spam bot, and/of having differing political views is not (although political orientation is protected in some states). Basically, following your line of thinking here, Reddit isn't actually doing anything wrong in terms of the law.
1 DrTeaHC 2018-03-06
We will see. There is currently a case involving twitter and that Amren guy that looks promising. It's in my opinion that public forums such as these should have to adhere to our constitutional rights. As for Russian bots that's different. I don't believe they should have the right to censor content that they disagree with. These leftists would freak out if the shoe was on the other foot and they were being censored in public forums.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
I'm not disagreeing with your point about liberals freaking out if it it was on the other foot, but I do disagree that you believe they don't have a right to censor their content. It's a private forum, and freedom of speech protects you from prosecution from the government, not from being censored on a private companies website. I think you have a very broad interpretation of the first amendment, and it's not an uncommon interpretation either.
1 DrTeaHC 2018-03-06
In its current status it might be true. Things can change especially when it comes to interpretation of law and how it is worded. In the past we have had to pass laws to regulate monopolies in order to create a fairer market. When our marketplace of ideas and public discourse gets put into the hands of a nepotistic bunch whom seek to monopolize it for their narrow range of political interests I don't see why there couldn't be changes made. Years ago sexual orientation might not have been protected. Today it is. Today free speech on Internet might not be protected but with a world where public life is increasingly being woven with the Internet I think things may change. Or at least be spoken about to see where we are on the issue.
https://www.scribd.com/document/372035678/Taylor-v-Twitter-Complaint The case undergoing that is semi relevant.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
I'm not disagreeing that it could or shouldn't be changed. I'm stating that the comparisons to "whiny gays having a cake baked" isn't a very straightforward comparison as this commenter makes it seem. Personally, I'm for communities self-regulating what is and isn't put on their website, but I'm sure I'm the minority here, and that's fine.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
They know how this shutdown of ideas ends, and that is exactly what they're trying to make happen.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
I think that is a little alarmist. Granted, we are on conspiracy, but a private company censoring what sort of content it has does not equal a big brother situation. Reddit is not the only place on the internet.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
What market cap would reddit need for you to consider it a violating free speech?
Are you that unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes? Are you unable to see how badly this ends when people are left in their own echo chambers? Set aside your current understanding of the law, are you really unable to see how this might be wrong?
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
Violating free speech would be the government arresting you for saying "russia is great lol", not for reddit for deleting low-effort content like "russia is great lol".
It isn't a violation of free speech to keep certain rhetoric out of your community, as much as you may think it is wrong, it doesn't make a first amendment violation. You cannot come into my house and say "russia is great lol" if I do not want you to come to my house and say that. (granted, I would probably just laugh and invite you in if you are my friend)
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
How does this address my previous comment at all?
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
Because you consider it a violation of free speech, I do not.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Right, not limiting free speech, just "keeping" certain rhetoric out of your community. That is some Orwellian wordplay going on.
What you are proposing sets a terrible precedent, and the window of accepted speech will only get smaller. But if you don't have much worth saying you have nothing to worry about, so keep doing you man.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
Free speech is protection from the government arresting you for saying whatever you wany, not from a community deciding it doesn't want Russian bots spamming them.
The comparisons to 1984 are extremely overblown and exaggerated, you should be happy that we don't actually live in an orwellian society
1 smoozer 2018-03-06
How you gonna pull the "what is your comment even about??" card, then immediately say things that the comment addressed? Pretty weak, man.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
And discussion forum website formats are not the only form of website allowed on the Internet. Reddit could instead choose to offer no-comment viewing of artwork, or puzzle games, or any other form of website that doesn't mislead people into thinking it is offering a venue for people to speak openly.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
The law isn't the only...or even the primary... basis for evaluating wrongdoing. Censorship is morally wrong regardless of whether it is done by a government or a non-government entity because it violates a fundamental human right of free speech. Owning a website doesn't miraculously transform that wrong into right. At the core of the problem is deception. They infer that anyone is free to set up an account and express their views and no mention is made at the time of account creation that the website owners intend to prohibit specific viewpoints. Thus, when a person takes time to establish an account after having been mislead that their free expression would be allowed, when that turns out to not be true, then the website has defrauded them of the time which that user invested in establishing the account, reading, and replying. In short, since the website's ad revenue is based upon viewership, they are falsely luring in people to increase their ad revenues, but doing so with the intention of actually not letting the user speak freely.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
Is that so? I don't think the ToS that you agreed to would think so. (psst it's one of the fist things)
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Ok...so point out the part of that where you can't post something about a Nazi assraping a car salesman on Thursdays?
The point is..."any reason we choose" doesn't say anything at all about particular words or ideas being singled out for exclusion.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
"Without advance notice and at any time, we may, for violations of this agreement or for any other reason we choose: ...... (3) remove any of your User Content from reddit."
I don't know what else you need bub, it literally says it right there, any reason we choose, says they can remove anything for any reason. I don't care how ambiguous or unfair you think that part of the ToS is, the point is they can remove your post for whatever reason they want, and they never mislead you about that fact. You have no argument here. I am not going to sit here and argue about the semantics of their ToS, if you feel you cannot adhere to them or come to terms with them, then you should not use Reddit (it also says that in the ToS, which I suspect you did not read until now)
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
And I suspect that you now realize that the ToS is exactly as ambiguous...and thus misleading...as I originally said.
As for not using Reddit...I have a better idea...they can fix it or get it off my Internet. As a US taxpayer that funded the development of the Internet through DARPA...yes, its my Internet....and as such they have no right to undermine free speech. Sorry if that perturbs your Socialist beliefs.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
I personally don't find it ambiguous at all; I stated that you may find the post ambiguous or unfair. It states that they can remove your post for any reason, what is misleading about that?
"muh internet" lol, do you seriously think that solely you own the internet. Our tax dollars, not just your tax dollars funded it, so that makes it our internet.. which you probably wont like to hear since that's a pretty socialist idea. Sharing something as a public service that all of our tax dollars funded.
Seriously, the fact that you think it is your internet and not our internet, as in anyone can do what they want with it, and the fact that you think a company has to bend to your will because you do not like their terms of service that you agreed to when you made your account whilst spouting I have some sort of socialist agenda that I am pushing is ironic and ridiculous to the point that I actually laughed out loud. The irony here is that, you believe I'm spouting socialist nonsense, when in reality this line of thinking (that a company can do what it wants with it's services free from government regulation) is more libertarian if anything.
Get a grip on reality dude, I'm not sure how it's undermining your free speech. A company enforcing their ToS that you agreed to is somehow undermining your free speech rights. I just have to go ahead and assume that you don't even know what the 1st amendment actually covers, so I don't think I should engage in this pointless argument anymore until you get a grip on reality and learn what it is that you are actually arguing.
"but muh internet" lol
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
LOL Glad to make your day more fun.
Ok so let me straighten you out on my Internet. Of course I don't own it all because I don't pay all the US taxes and that would just be silly. I see it more as a time-share sort of arrangement...whatever part I'm using is mine at the moment.
1 kylesnooze 2018-03-06
you are wrong here, but yeah I'm also done here
1 TotesMessenger 2018-03-06
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
The difference is every entity on the planet is not trying to overthrow the democratic process by eliminating the oppositions ability to speak and form ideas. The truck driving unions are not forming up to kick people off the internet and insure they don't have wrong think.
1 Space_Pecs 2018-03-06
Reddit isn't kicking people off of the internet, correct?
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
Reddit is one branch in an overall tree of globalism. Youtube is, reddit is, google is, facebook is, you are being willfully ignorant if you are ignoring the over all theme going on, which is censorship across the board.
1 anonymoushero1 2018-03-06
lol you guys are so fucking retarded. None of those companies have done anything extreme or violated anyone's free speech. The reason they generally have a left-leaning bias is because their audience is generally left-leaning, and they have advertisers that want to target that audience. Your dumbass views aren't being censored they're just unpopular outside your echo chambers.
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
Clearly not, as they are banning individuals with right leaning viewpoints, so the audience isn't 100% leftists.
Furthermore organization and collaboration with other groups such as the ADL to make a blanketed campaign of censorship IS a violation of free speech.
The advertisers wanted to advertise BEFORE this massive censorship campaign, advertisers want to reach the broadest audience possible, so then pray tell why an advertiser would want to limit itself from ANY group, left or right?
Perhaps your stupid fucking views are the issue, and perhaps you are retarded if you don't see this.
1 anonymoushero1 2018-03-06
There is not one good example of someone being banned without a good cause. The ONLY halfway legitimate example is when Twitter made a "mistake" and then corrected it.
Everything else is crybaby tears from angry white incel boys. Every piece of "evidence" you think you have is just a list of a bunch of misinterpretations of facts, wrong assumptions, and leaps of faith disguised as logic.
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
tens of thousands of accounts banned from twitter and reddit disagree with that assertion.
"good cause" is a fucking meaningless term, what is good cause to a hyper sensitive twat is not good cause to the average person. Someone just saying something you dislike is not cause for banning.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
If I tell the nazi to stop shouting death to Jews and leave my shop am I ‘trying to overthrow the democratic process’. No, I am not. So stop speaking fucking nonsense.
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
If you tell a nazi to stop shouting death to jews and leave your shop that is fine, when you start collaborating with every group in the city to make sure the nazi starves to death because you dislike his opinion, even when he hasn't shouted death to anything, then you are using a lynch mob to push your political agenda, just like reddit.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
Plenty of space on the internet to take their hateful views.
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
Name them.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
‘The rest of the internet’
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
So then you can't name these sites or places huh.
Maybe daily stormer? OH wait, they censored daily stormer off the net for "hate speech"
Your own stupid concept of "everywhere else" doesn't exist. These sites have worked to create monopolies and you cheered while doing so.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
I can’t name them because I have zero interest in going anywhere near them. I don’t need to name them because I have the most basic understanding of the internet and how it works and know that it is simple as creating a new place. The land isn’t limited here. There are no regulations stopping these sites.
It is clear you have absolutely no idea how any of this works.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
I have private sympathy for their self-created problems.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
It’s nice that you think this relates. But it doesn’t, at all.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
I'm sorry that you don't think....it does.
1 Sillysartre 2018-03-06
‘Private sympathy’ is so incredibly stupid I really don’t know what to tell you.
1 BanMikePantsNow 2018-03-06
Bingo.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
I swear no one in this sub has ever read 1984, they just cite it every time something happens that they don't like.
Can you explain to me what the parallel is in 1984 to a private company banning accounts, which are used to sow confusion among the electorate? I've recently read the book, for at least the third time, and I don't see it.
1 RustyFlash 2018-03-06
have my upvote
1 Weigh13 2018-03-06
We are at war with Russia. We have always been at war with Russia. If you say anything against the party you are working with Russia and will be removed from society. Ignorance is strength.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
So, to be clear, in 1984 they would switch who they were at war with and then they would force everyone to say that we have always been at war with them, and they would go back and edit all of the information to cleanse or add information that would support this theory.
So are we suggesting that Russia isn't an adversary? Or that Russia just recently became an adversary and we have gone back in time and made up the cold war and the tensions that have existed since the fall of the USSR? That's amazing because I remember my sister went to Germany and was lucky enough to be there during the fall of the Berlin wall, and was able to take some chunks off of it. Hell, my family even has some of these chunks. It's amazing how well they edited history because they even put these rocks in my parent's and sister's house. /s
I honestly don't see how reddit banning some russian troll accounts is anything like the "we have always been at war" claim from 1984.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
The whole point to this is it isn't Russian trolls being banned, its conservatives and people going against the left wing narrative.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
First, the top level comment makes no allusion to this. They simply state that what they are doing is reminiscent of 1984. There is no reason to believe they mean anything but what they actually claim they are doing.
Second, care to show any proof of this claim? I see plenty of people, right here in this thread, going against the narrative, and they are still here. Why didn't they get them, too?
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
Yes it does, you say you see no reason to be upset that "Russian trolls" are being banned, when in reality they are just a boogeyman. It was shown that they did what, buy some political ads?? Made a couple Facebook groups or something?? It was a drop in the pond.
Reddit has censored TD from appearing on the front page and changed vote weights, conservatives are being banned from twitter and youtube and having their videos demonetized in mass under the guise of "hate speech" when in reality they are just telling people the truth.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
I didn't say there was no reason to be upset, I questioned how it has anything to do with 1984.
You can argue that it wasn't effective, I'm not sure I agree, considering the claim is that they basically did their best to amplify spun talking points and fake news. But that is much harder to quantify. I'm still trying to figure out how this has anything to do with 1984.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
the relation to 1984 is the attempted censorship going on right now under the cover of Russian trolls and hate speech. it's to control the narrative and silence opposition
1 KennyTheNord 2018-03-06
Just because it doesn't have to do with the government doesn't mean you cannot allude to 1984. I think he's comparing the silencing of dissenting opinions of the party.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Huxley was way closer.
1 Frost_Light 2018-03-06
What he's saying is that calling something 1984 like because it's censorship is a complete misunderstanding of 1984 that does not go beyond the very surface. They deeper significance of 1984 is not about censorship, but the obliteration of the notion of truth. Which this has nothing to do with.
1 KennyTheNord 2018-03-06
There is still the plot points of censorship
1 Frost_Light 2018-03-06
That's like saying anything with a person walking around New York is exactly like catcher in the rye.
1 esperdiv 2018-03-06
To obliterate truth, a good first step is to silence those who speak it.
Even better if you can label them as the boogeyman-of-the-day (terrorist, Russian troll).
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
So the Russian trolls clearly don't exist and it's just another conspiracy on mass surveillance?
And wait, so now we have Google in on your conspiracy as well? Google being clearly closely ties to Reddit and all...
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
is that what i said? No i said that they are a drop in the pond being made up to be some huge thing when in reality it was insignificant, they bought ads for both sides, they are being used as an excuse for a lost election.
you obviously havent been paying attention to anything if you don't think google is censoring their search resuilts, you may be in the wrong sub bud.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
As i said in another reply, Google has it's own shady things in play, yes some of them more than likely controlling info as they are primarily a large data company. However, saying I don't belong in a sub for sharing a belief counter to yours, especially in a sub about open discussion, is a bit much.
The propaganda issue is a rather large thing despite you wanting to believe otherwise. Yes, said trolls spread messages on both sides of our political system. You seem to want to make this a right vs left situation. It's moreover Americans vs foreign influence. Additionally, there are facilities where people make comparable salaries to what we Americans make where people create content for social media and online publications. Don't think that much resource would be wasted on something that doesn't matter.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
I'm not making it a right versus left thing, i simply pointed out they bought ads for both sides and it was an insignificant amount, even compared to other foreign influence that's a much bigger problem, like for example China who nearly owns all of Hollywood now. It's only a big deal now because Hillary lost and they needed an excuse to why the spied on the Trump campaign so they rolled out this psyop on the American people.
All i claimed is google censors it's results to push liberal news and tried to make it sound like i was crazy or something. It's extremely easy to see and pretty amazing that someone who i guess follows real conspiracies would deny it
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
So you say it's not a right vs left thing but then go right into why it's right vs left. And surveillance into Trump was because of who Trump decided to do business with. Not like his associates were under watch before his run for President or anything.
So how is Google just pushing liberal news then? I can agree to censoring their results to an extent. However, why does Google still allow one to search for alt right sites and material while also supposedly censoring said material? You're making Google into the same construct you put media in that is against your bias it seems.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
No, I went into why it was insignificant for either side given they bought ads etc. for both sides, did you read what i said??
please go to google right now and click on the news button. it will be page after page of liberal drivel with one or two fox news articles sprinkled in and nothing else. it's like that with any news related searches as well
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
Can you better define liberal drivel? It seems from your comment anything but Fox News is liberal, something granted I'd expect from a TD poster but still...
Insignificant for either side but with a heavy slant towards the right? I'm kinda thinking you are putting commentary on actual news on par with commentary on opinion and propaganda. Can you give an example of said trolls on the left that equate to what we have on the right?
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
i don't follow fox news at all so i don't know what you're trying to say by that, my point was they sprinkle one or two fox news articles in as their conservative sources and that's usually it. News that they themselves have branded "fake news" or alt-right" or whatever is nowhere to be found 95% of the time, or it's removed as a top result or suggested video if it get's too much attention.
The best example of trolls on the left are Correct The Record (aka shareblue) that literally took over r/politics and shilled on internet boards non stop and still do.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
So you throw Fox as the example but don't watch said network. What do you label as alt right? I see WSJ and other right leaning publications when i look through news via Google. And if we take your word with merit, so a private company that shares aggregated news has a bias?
So we are equating shareblue to trolls? How are they trolling aside from posting left leaning articles? And where is said evidence? I definitely see them as a left leaning publication bit it seems, at least to me, you are labeling blogs as trolling.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
they are a private company with a defacto monopoly on internet searches, along with youtube and Facebook in their respective categories. you really think companies that hold as much power as they do over the internet should be allowed to censor one side according to their own authority? I look at whatever sources I can find, what comes to mind for the "alt-right" labeled stuff i sites like breitbart, infowars, and conservative youtubers, radio shows. MSM claims the majority of these are racist nazis, but when you watch them or look at their sites there is absolutely nothing that suggests that
Yes shareblue is trolls, their handbook was leaked online, I'll try to track it down. It went into detail on how to slide discussion on online forums, push their narrative and multitude of other techniques. It was rebranded after they were exposed from CTR to shareblue
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
That claim on the majority being racist nazis is a bit over stretching, agreed. However, it's not entirely wrong as said group seems to favor those mentioned alt right sites. The alt sites are more a safe space for said racists.
"Private" companies can do what they want, here "private" being non-governmental. It's not on them for users to get a balanced news diet.
I wouldn't put shareblue in the same bucket as trolly alt right sites. Said handbook you are referencing is a response to the unbalanced information situation that existed and still exists. It more or less states that shareblue will act as anti-Trump in the sense of fighting against misinformation spread by said administration. For your view, I can see how they are the enemy as you are a regular on TD. However, it's not quite as radical as what it is in response to.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
And hold on, sorry for the second comment. But, you seem to be claiming that Mueller is a conspiracy? That charges brought against Trump's "best people" are what, fake?
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
you tell me, were they indicted for "Russian meddling and collusion" which was the whole point of the investigation? or simple process crimes that have nothing to do with that or Trump himself.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
Pretty sure conspiracy against the US is in the list of charges. So yea, in a sense as that would be said charge for said collusion.
And so hold on, now you switch from the surveillance was a conspiracy to it happened but said crimes weren't connected. Not connected as in Trump didn't vet and hire said people to work for his campaign and presidency?
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
I'm not switching to anything, I'm answering what you're asking me.
Like I said there is no charge of Russian meddling and collusion to influence the election, and what has been charged is not connected to Trump. I don't know about the vetting or whatever that's separate issue, the point is the supposed crimes are not related to what the special counsel was created to investigate, they are process crimes
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
So conspiring against the US is a process crime? And clearly Trump hiring them, which has to be done with vetting, has nothing to do with how he operates or his campaign because staff isn't important. Clearly hiring criminals for key positions means you yourself are innocent.
For what you are asking about specifically, give it some time. The investigation isn't over yet and time will tell.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
who was charged for that and what does it entail? forgive me if I missed that I'm not sure of the one you're talking about.
what does people hiding crimes they committed have to do with Trump? you think he can just read their minds and find everything they've ever done? sometimes mistakes are made, let them serve their time if they did it, but it's disingenuous to try to put that on Trump. There have been criminals working in every administration that I've been alive so it's not like this is something new.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
So we turn to whataboutism. Classic.
So Flynn, Page, Manafort, all being hired by Trump to work for our country with one being a national security advisor, and also getting jammed up with actual charges, has nothing to do with Trump? So if a manager hires bad employees whole knowing said employees' history means the manager isn't responsible?
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
?? you realize the Flynn thing happened AFTER he was picked as NSA while Trump was Pres. Elect right? The entire deal is he didn't explain exactly what he said on a phone call to FBI agent Strzk (yes the corrupt as fuck one with texts about creating insurance policies and shit. same guy).
Again I ask, which one is charged with conspiring against the US? is it something new or did I miss it?
page and manafort I don't know much about, but wasn't Manafort a paperwork crime? like he didn't file something by a certain time?
So if you unknowingly hired a person that killed someone without you knowing, is it then your fault when he get's charged lol.
You seem to be missing my point that none of that has to do with Russian collusion and election meddling which was the entire point in the first place.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
Clearly all of Flynn's sketchy doings didn't stretch before Trump picked him. Not like Obama's admin gave advice to not hire the guy as he as previously fired.
Page plead guilty to a count of conspiracy against the US. I believe there were some others named but that is the one that comes to mind. Same dude who has FISA surveillance renewed on him for what like 2 years before he was hired by Trump. Manafort got caught up in paperwork initially but I think he has other charges on him now.
In this case I'm fairly certain said manager knew about his employee's skeletons but still hired him anyways.
Pretty sure that whole conspiracy against the US is the Russian meddling charge you keep asking for. And as I said earlier, gotta wait til the end of the investigation before claiming no charges exist.
1 diehardgiraffe 2018-03-06
Ah yes, I forgot that Google only works for the betterment of mankind and totally doesn't have any ulterior motives whatsoever.
They recently just dropped the motto of "Don't be evil."
Google and Reddit both profit from mass surveillance, and both sides sell metric fuck-tons of user data for profit. Not sure where you're going with this.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
Not saying Google isn't evil in its own way. However, there seems to be some over reaching of saying Google and Reddit are buddy buddy.
And I still have the open question about Russian trolls, or just foreign trolls, not existing.
1 diehardgiraffe 2018-03-06
They don't have to be buddy buddy, they both profit from the mass surveillance so it makes sense both would seek it in whichever way possible.
I'm sure Russia has internet trolls, as I'm sure every other country meddles in every other country's business. Welcome to geopolitics. Russia's influence seems to be incredibly overblown. I'd be incredibly surprised if China didn't have a similar influence, as well as many of our allies. Everyone has a stake in the U.S election, they'd be stupid to not try and interfere. We're just using Russia as the current boogeyman as the middle east has been largely pacified and we always need an enemy.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
I agree we always need a scapegoat, at least that's how our current America seems to be. Russia definitely fits the bill as they have been a longtime guest on the sitcom that is America. However, from what has been gathered from not just US intelligence but from the international scene, Russia has been on the cyber game hard as of late and we, as in the US, seemed to have just ignored it until it became an issue. I think our country "needing" another boogeyman, a trend seen coming from the right as an observation, fell into a lap of convenience.
1 diehardgiraffe 2018-03-06
So has China, and every other major power in the world. Russia was the one we went with because we have a history of being in conflict with them. If we really dug, I'd be surprised if there was a single major power not found to be interfering with our election. Lord knows at least Israel, China, Russia, and parts of (if not all) of the EU were. I'd be incredibly surprised to find otherwise.
It's beneficial for everyone else in the world to blame Russia as everyone wants to influence the U.S but no one wants to deal with a pissed off U.S.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
I get the blanket of everyone wants to interfere with the US. However, as I said earlier, Russia is the country that is currently dominating that space. And Russia is the one country we still have a wealth of trade deals on hold with because of sanctions and our foreign policy.
1 NChSh 2018-03-06
Hell of a lot better than conservatives. Tell me, who caused the last 5 recessions? Who started the Iraq war on false pretenses? Who passed the Patriot Act? Who ended Net Neutrality? Who is trying to end every banking regulation right now?
You guys have a track record of fucking everything up with basically no wins under your belt in a generation.
Russia fucked with our election, there's proof. Everything consevatives have done since the 80s is a failure and you know it.
1 diehardgiraffe 2018-03-06
Good to know that you're smarter than every major economist who can't agree on this, or even come close to an underlying reason. Obama, a democrat, was the first president in history to fail to reach an annual 3% GDP growth.
Both sides, Including Her Majesty Hillary Clinton.
98/100 senators. https://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
The internet was fine before 2015, and it's fine right now. Glad to see you parroting every possible sharia blue talking point, though.
This was fun. I really enjoyed how you moved the goalposts completely away from what was being discussed. I'm glad you now admit that Google has plenty of motivation to push for mass surveillance.
You are incredibly blinded. Democrats aren't peaceful little doves. They vote against things when it looks good for them, not out of principle (as can be seen with the Patriot act). You need to realize that all politicians, except for a very select few, are out for their own good. Not yours. Not mine. Daddy government will always care for itself first which is why I prefer to limit its power.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
You know what's funny?
I see TD demonized all the time on various subs. How it's full of hate speech, disgusting people, etc etc. I saw you reference it just now, so I finally decided to click.
It's not exactly what I was led to believe. There's a couple of people with strong language, a few people that probably need to get out more, but that's about it. Hell, I found out that NK says it will consider getting rid of nukes and that Rand Paul is looking to finally have the Fed audited. I haven't seen those bits of news on any other sub.
As someone who doesn't subscribe to ether party, I found this quite interesting.
1 croutons_r_good 2018-03-06
Man I'm glad you took the time to look yourself. it is definitely a circlejerk for Trump nonstop, which is a nice break from the majority of reddit, and I don't necessarily agree with everything he does or that is there. But it's nothing like those people would have you believe, it's the same people that claim were all white supremacist Nazis for supporting Trump so ya... lol.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
I expected full-on 4chan shenanigans, quite frankly.
1 MuchoMaas49 2018-03-06
You know what's funny? I heard about both those things listening to NPR, which is actively demonized on T_D. You know what I don't hear on NPR? That we need to euthanize the right, that any political party is mentally challenged, or that talking about race issues is somehow a Jewish plot.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
Eh, I can hear NPR's bias. They used to not be that way. I read Axios every other day, as that's the most consistent site I have found to date. CNN, Fox, all of those jokers, I'm done.
I have't seen the other stuff, but again, today is the only day I have ever gone into TD (I guess it's T_D?).
1 cg001 2018-03-06
https://i.redd.it/923ue0m61tj01.jpg
https://ceddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/81rm28/man_shoots_himself_outside_wh_geotus_is_safe/dv4ujvj/
https://www.reddit.com/user/jasontakesmagatten/overview/
Scroll down.
https://ceddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/82225q/just_two_socialist_antiarms_bearing_propaganda/dv6xalr/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/80mxi2/the_top_ten_times_the_donald_threatened_to_hang/
https://ceddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/80dt49/thanks_dh_i_honestly_didnt_know_that_there_was/?st=je4r7e49&sh=93c97e0b
This is from the first 3 pages of againsthatesubreddits. So while some of these might be deleted they we're up long enough to get crossposted to another website. Granted some are only a few upvotes there's still tons of examples.
1 AutoModerator 2018-03-06
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
First of all, thank you for taking the time to link a few things for me. The ceddit stuff is bluecoated, but I'll read it at home.
There's definitely some folks off the chain, and thank goodness there's not like 5k upvotes on the bad ones.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
OK, the ceddit links gave me a headache.
1 cg001 2018-03-06
Why
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
The nasty and ignorant posts are as bad as any other extreme sub.
1 cg001 2018-03-06
I see. I thought there was something wrong with the website. There is a ton of crossover between conspiracy and Donald and they both have people who regularly post dirty things like this. Sometimes they are up for hours even after being reported to a mod there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/8298zh/rmetacanada_has_a_sticky_on_their_front_page_with/
This happened on metacanada and was stickied for hours.
Check out /r/againsthatesubreddits sometime and you'll see how bad some subs can get. The sub is left leaning , meaning either there isn't left related hate at this level or there is a clear bias. It does show the bottom of the barrel though.
The Donald also hate the rally in Charlottesville stickied even though it was it was organized by white supremacists. And after Heather was murdered they tried to act like they never had promoted it. And still to this day people say Heather died from a heart attack because she was fat and not hit by a car.
The thing is the Donald shouldn't be an extreme sub. It's 'the official' sub of the president of the United States.
1 AutoModerator 2018-03-06
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
Is it really the official sub? Surely there's one that's less dramatic.
Conspiracy, IMO, has been messed up on purpose. It used to be genuinely interesting, and now it devolves into name-calling instead of real debate and research.
1 cg001 2018-03-06
Yep. I used to love conspiracy until it became all about politics.
And trump himself did an ama in there. Not really official but that's why I put it in quotes.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
Stands to reason.
Thanks for all of the info today. I have lots to process.
1 cg001 2018-03-06
Hey no problem man. Keep on being yourself.
1 mjbmitch 2018-03-06
They have not censored them from appearing on the front page.
1 MuchoMaas49 2018-03-06
Right, they stopped t_d from manipulating themselves to the front page, which was a great choice.
1 Prince_pepe 2018-03-06
Give it time
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Haha Chateubriand would like a word.....conservatives lololololol
1 qiv 2018-03-06
Reddit refuses to ban the_donald despite overwhelming support from the rest of the site, yet you're still beating this drum
1 memnactor 2018-03-06
But it makes sense. Try going to r/worldnews and look at the amount of posts pushing the "Russia is the enemy" narrative. The heavy propaganda effort we experience today does remind me of 1984. (and yes I've read it)
Do you believe Russia is the enemy?
If you do you're wrong, you have fallen victim to propaganda and I pity you.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
So what lies has the government spread about our adversarial nature with Russia? The only tie I've seen to 1984 was the false claim that this was the "we have always been at war with Russia" and that doesn't change the fact that it hasn't even been 30 years since the cold war ended, it would be ridiculous to believe that they went from adversary then, to neutral with us now.
1 Whiteymcwhitebelt 2018-03-06
Right now they are neither our friend or foe. They are seeking to make themselves a member at the table of great nations of the world and will take whatever path they feel will do that, even if that is a path of friendship.
1 unitsofwhat 2018-03-06
We’re past the time when only the government had control over you.
There are 3 CEOs, only 3, that could completely ruin your social and business lives. All at the drop of a “you’re banned.”
When they do it to NAZIs we say it’s ok, what if they started banning “socialists” from using their platforms?
Facebook, Amazon and Google. FYI.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-06
The difference is that Nazis advocate for the genocide of a race while socialists do not. Let's also realize the argument you presented is a slippery slope fallacy.
1 qiv 2018-03-06
Obviously Russia is an enemy. We made a bunch of eastern euro countries nato right after the Soviet union fell, they're not gonna forget that for a long time. Now we're selling weapons to Ukraine and you think Russia is not an enemy? 300 Russian-Syrian forces were decimated by US artillery a month ago and you think they're not the enemy? Wake the fuck up dude
1 memnactor 2018-03-06
Oh you're talking about strategic enemy of the US. Well they certainly are.
But they are not your enemy, Just your masters enemy.
1 qiv 2018-03-06
The strategic enemy of my democratically elected officials; ergo enemies of me, a citizen. The US isnt a kingdom buddy we handled that issue a few hundred years ago.
1 memnactor 2018-03-06
The elected officials do not run your country. I am a bit surprised that you have that opinion and post on r/conspiracy, but let me give you an example.
George W. Bush ran on a platform of isolationism and "no more nation building".
What happened. War and nation building.
Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change", and general niceness.
What happened? Even more war, bombings. Killings.
Trump ran on a platform of trade, agreements and friendly relations with Russia.
What happened? Even more wars, conflict with Russia, many killings.
..and that is just a stupid example. It doesn't matter who you elect.
1 qiv 2018-03-06
Because I understand how a republic works.
Yeah... Do you remember 9/11? Whatever your opinion on it being real or an inside job or whatever, politicians and citizens were united in that there needed to be a response of force. Obviously the actions GWB took were... Not good, but its unfair to say he didnt live up to his campaign promises when he had to deal with the largest attack on american soil since pearl harbor.
As for the rest of your comment, yeah obviously you're not going to get real substantial change from the executive branch. Real change goes through congress, who has checked out of governing altogether. Expecting a President to swoop in and change/fix the country in any long term way is naive. You want change, vote out your undoubtedly courrupt state representatives and vote in someone who can't get bought for a 2,000 dollar check.
1 memnactor 2018-03-06
I wish I could share your optimism when it comes to the situation in the US. I really do.
1 Crowsworth 2018-03-06
The Russia angle is irrelevant, the concept in the book is complete obedience. It doesn't matter who the war is with, as long as you are always in line with the party line. The point of the book is the folly of being a sycophant, and never questioning anything those in power do or say.
Although this sub has a bit of a problem with hyperbole and an inability to actually read content, instead of going for the most extreme theory and running with that as if its the truth. It is interesting to see how quickly people will fall in line when they are told what they want to hear, and how they refuse to question a theory that they themselves believe to be true.
(plus a lot of the posters on here are obsessed with the whole SJW vs Conservatives angle, so anything from that clusterfuck of stupid will be a shit show from the get-go)
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Agreed that the concept of the book is complete obedience. Which is exactly why I think banning Russian accounts meant to sow discord in our political system, regardless of how effective they were, isn't anything like the book.
1 Frost_Light 2018-03-06
I think the most important concept is the obliteration of the concept of objective truth.
Other books and other mediums have done authoritarianism and a totalitarian government, and will do it again. What makes 1984 unique is the fact that the state does not achieve its ends though intimidation or brute force; it simply makes it impossible to keep straight what happens.
Doublethink doesn't just mean someone contradicts themselves, it means that a person can believe with all their heart that the are completely dry, while being livid that you splashed them and hold these two thoughts simultaneously without seeing an issue.
They destroy any objective frame of reference so that there is no way to verify reality, to the point people can't believe their own thoughts.
The ultimate result of this is that whatever the state say is reality you have to believe. They say 2+2=5. You have no calculators of math books to check with. You can count on your fingers and know that two fingers on one hand and two fingers on the other hand will get you 4 fingers, and 2+2=5. "And" not "but". There is just no contradiction there.
The Russian are attempting to do the same thing by though different means. Rather than destroy objective truth they attempt to make truth and lies of equal credibility. Actively discredit reputable sources, while promoting their own websites that they wrote yesterday to say whatever they want. Make enough people think that all news is fake news then you have destroyed any objective frame of reference for reality. They can make any claim they want and people are won't be able to verify what is and isn't real. In stead of being unable to locate a calculator to check if 2+2=5, they throw 100 calculators into the room and tell you they're all shitty broken calculators. They make it harder for people to tell which one is and objective source.
So when they say that 2+2=5 they can point to the broken calculator that says that. Then they can say 2+2=8 later, find the calculator that says that, and say the other one was busted. Maybe you can locate the working, objective calculator, but they have already raised so much doubt that you're not sure it that one really is working.
The banning of Russian trolls is not 1984, the Russian trolls are 1984
1 Ronfarber 2018-03-06
Sounds like you’re describing the concept of “alternative facts”.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
I get your point and at some level I agree, as the goal is to get people in the position of doubting their own perception of reality. However, I would like to point that the whole end of that book is about them using brute force to break him.
1 Frost_Light 2018-03-06
True but that was the exception rather than the norm for their society.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
The violence happened in a secret detention facility, not on the streets, courts, or any kind of plain sight. Kinda like the torture site Chicago has.
1 choufleur47 2018-03-06
This is sad.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
You're so spot on with some of your analysis, then it falls off the rails. The Russian government is not the only player here. It's not as if corporate news was all factual and then Boris came along to ruin the party. Any accusation against a public figure can be waved away as a Russian trick. That's not nearly good enough. Find out where power intersects.
Freemasons ran Russia throughout the 20th century and I doubt they stopped. Look up the Royal Arch hand in coat sign and see how many famous Russians display it.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
People are fighting other citizens while obeying the state and corporate masters
1 Sirkke 2018-03-06
See: /r/The_Donald and /r/CBTS_Stream if you want to see this happening right in front of your eyes.
1 perfect_pickles 2018-03-06
the party was only concerned with party members being compliant.
they didn't care a hoot about what the plebes got up to or believed.
1 Weigh13 2018-03-06
The problem is how do you define "Russian Troll" and who gets to decide. We have yet to see any solid evidence of anything they are claiming about Russia. And you're right, the analogy isn't 100% perfect so I guess we can't make the comparison at all, huh?
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Well, I'm taking their claim at face value. If the claim is that they aren't just banning Russian Trolls, then I don't really have any evidence of that, but I would like to see the evidence people have that supports this claim.
1 LurkPro3000 2018-03-06
Are you suggesting that Russia has been a major issue (politically) in the past decade? Cause it hasn't. This last election was the first time I've heard shit about Russia outside of Syria/Crimea issues.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Maybe not a major issue. I think that might be hard to quantify. But I would call Crimea a major thing, and it was only talking about 4 years ago. And the ongoing issues in Syria indicate that we are adversaries and that has been going on for quite some time.
1 zachij 2018-03-06
The only thing I find major about the Crimea situaton in that it was Russian first and had 95.5% support to join Russia in 2014, hence why after the referendum the Crimean leader applied to join. Yet funnily enough we talk about it like its some apartheid land grab on the levels of Israel or something lol.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Wow.
Crimea is a place of strategic military importance, especially for Russia. It was part of another country, and had been for over a quarter of a century. This country, Ukraine, was vying to become part of the major alliance with the US. Russia invaded it, without wearing their uniforms, overthrew the government, and then held a referendum asking what the Crimeans want to do. And most polls put rejoining Russia, admittedly with a plurality of the vote, at only 41%.
If you think that an election where 95.5% (I think the official total was actually closer to 97%) of the people vote one way is likely legitimate, when the polls prior to that put it at 41% and when they allowed no international observers, you are naive. If you think that 95.5% of the people of Crimea want to be part of Russia, when only 33% of Crimea is Russian, you are downright foolish.
If you can't see why this is a big deal, and you can't see the blatant conspiracy staring you in the face, you probably aren't as observant as you like to think yourself. You are probably more about trying to make things fit your narrative, rather than actually objectively looking at what is going on and rationally concluding what is going on.
1 zachij 2018-03-06
Hahaha way too much propaganda to handle on the toilet for my liking, I dont think this is the type of place to peddle that crap, most people are well aware of the inorganic US/Soros backed fascist upheaval of the Ukrainian government around that time period so the whole Ukraine/US friendship purity ring bs can take a back seat.
Maybe we should stop at the admitted plurality of the vote and end the argument there, no? But then again I want to know what your thoughts are on the original decree from 1954? Disclosed to the people a week after it was decided behind closed doors, through the front page of a newspaper ad, no less. It was also approved by the Presidium of the Supreme council which did not hold enough seats for the quorum necessary to even pass it, having only 13 of the 27 seats, aka under 50%.
It should never have been illegally stolen in the first place, hence why the plebiscite had such a turnout as it did and the vote went the way it did. Thank goodness the people got what they wanted in the end!
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
You've caught yourself in a catch-22. You can't argue that we overthrew a government that was friendly to Russia and then they invaded it back taking something of strategic military value, but that it wasn't a major issue.
No one said anything about a "purity ring," I was just pointing out the facts, none of which you actually disputed. Even if control of the government was completely orchestrated by the US and Russia, this is just evidence that they are, in fact, a adversary.
Why would we do that? You were the one who made the ridiculously naive and implicit claim that the outcome of the vote was actually representative of the feelings of the people of Crimea, or that the vote wasn't rigged.
The question wasn't whether or not it was rightful property of Russia or of Crimea. The question was whether or not the annexation of Crimea by Russia was representative of a adversarial nature between the US and Russia.
And don't be silly. Ukraine has been independent with Crimea for 25 years. It's no coincidence that Russia took it back once it looked like the Ukraine was going to join NATO. If they really cared about it being their rightful property, why wait 25 years until taking it back? What changed? Oh yeah, the obvious thing, they were losing their influence over them.
Wow, you can't be serious. There was 123% voter turnout. We have polls from before hand that put support for it at less than half of what they claim to have gotten. You say I'm repeating propaganda, but the motivation for this move was blatantly obvious, the referendum was an obvious sham (123% voter turnout, BTW) and you are defending the move by parroting Russian propaganda. And you accuse me of being a victim of propaganda. This is amazing.
1 zachij 2018-03-06
But I did say it was major? It was just major for factors we didnt initially agree on but that of which you seem to have come around to in the opening statements of your post. Appreciated
And why are you telling me what we are and arent talking about? I couldnt care less about the finer nuances of your point my point has always been that the 'reclaiming' of Crimea was just, hence why I posted about the Presidium of the Supreme Council's ruling being 100% illegal. And that was just from the number of seats standpoint. Even if they somehow managed to pass the bill with the actual number of seats required it was constitutionally illegal anyway! A quote to better summarise:
“Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR or the USSR Constitution … provide powers of the Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR and for the consideration of the changes in the constitutional legal status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, members of the union republics. In view of the above, the decision adopted in 1954 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Soviet Union on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukraine SSR, did not correspond to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR and the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR.”
So the ruling was made well before a constitutional change granted the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Advisory) Council the power to carry out transfers of territories. Done and dusted right there.
But you seem to be really invested in the whole 123% voter turnout thing so could you enlighten me with those figures please? Because im scratching my head here. Everywhere shows the plebiscites turnout to be around 80-83%, even on MSM outlets, so im curious as to how your brain is working. Are you merely comparing the overall voter turnout to the Autonomous republic of Crimeas registered voters and not adding on the 300k or so from Sevastopol? Or, (and please tell me its not this) are you referring to the long since retracted yet widely circulated claims of voter turnout based on dodgy statistics given by ITAR-TASS? After reading through it would seem(i cbf editing) that you are indeed basing it off the aforementioned, as it was ITAR-TASS who originally peddled the incorrect 123% claim based on incorrect statistics that claimed there were 1,724,563 voters total as opposed to 1,524,563. They since retracted it but not before forbes and all the other scummy 'news' outlets peddled the disinformation. This is all backed up by the Central Election Commission of Ukraine so we can dispute the figures more if you want you but are absolutely incorrect about the matter and you will not find a modern piece that makes those claims today that hasnt since been retracted. Absolute rubbish this whole conversation.
For all the undecided users who couldnt be bothered reading a novel just peruse the internet and search away! Its not hard to find organic real people who are trying to shed light on Crimea since its return to Russia, wether it be through blogs or video etc.... Theres no question as to wether it was the right choice. Which is irrelevant anyway as it was the peoples choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpKoXLBtnU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woZx5OTlwDs
https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_society/2017/03/18/whats-life-really-like-in-crimea-3-years-after-reunion-with-russia_722136
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
You accuse me of spreading propaganda, but you are posting what is effectively a propaganda arm of the Russian government that says "life's great in Crimea now!" LOL.
You keep telling yourself that the referendum that got 97% of the vote, despite it never polling above 70% before, when no intentional observers were allowed, was legitimate and that this wasn't a big deal.
1 zachij 2018-03-06
Hahaha what happened? You were doing the whole know it all dot point bombardment straight from the pro reddit arguers handbook and it turned into that puny statement? And it only took one comment? Jeez....You wanted to bring out the 'statistics' so now ive met you halfway you have reverted to nothing fluff?
Back up your claims though, while you are here with me now at the computer. Wheres your evidence of 123% voter turnout? Show me some links with the required information please
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
You are correct I got the number wrong. I came across it and its since been corrected.
But so what? My other points still stand, 97% after no polls put it above 70% and no one was allowed to observe should be obviously suspicious to anyone. Even polls since then do not put it above 82%. And none of this changes the fact that you are still using a Russian propaganda paper to support your position. And none of this changes the fact that Russia, once it looked like Ukraine was going to join NATO, "secretly" invaded the area and overthrew the government.
We can argue for days whether or not they should belong to Russia or Ukraine, and it's not even necessarily that I disagree with you on that, but the reality is that this was a big deal and trying to play this off as some kind of democratic "will of the people" is just propaganda of the Putin backed overthrow of that government. Trying to downplay this event as not evidence of a strong adversarial nature between the US and Russia is even weaker.
1 Manny_Bothans 2018-03-06
They still have more nukes than anyone aside from the US, so from an existential perspective they are and have been a major political issue in the past decade. Just because they haven't been front and center in your news consumption doesn't make them a 3rd tier concern to US foreign policy.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
It's the idea that a new bad guy each decade is so distracting and polarizing the system remains effectively unchallenged
1 schiaboner 2018-03-06
What the OP is saying (I think) is they will ban non-russian troll accounts under the pretext of them being Russian troll accounts if they say anything not construed to be in line with the liberal/left narratives.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Why I find that position to be nonsense:
A) No one has provided a shred of evidence that this is actually the case and B) this sub is a perfect example of that not happening.
It seems that the argument is "this could happen, so it must be happening!"
1 lf11 2018-03-06
The Russian Navy saved our asses in the American Civil War. We've had a rough relationship ever since the Bolsheviks took power, but frankly Russia is more cousin than enemy with the notable exception of Communism.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Pete Seeger would like a word son....
1 Weigh13 2018-03-06
You do realize I was being satirical, right? I'm not sure what your point is.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
Mussolini said fascism and corporatism are one n the same.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Bingo! A big reason why fascism is a right wing philosophy. But but they've socialist in their name! Guise?
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Are you not familiar with the horseshoe model? Fascism and Communism while being at opposite ends of the model, are equally destructive in practice.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Communism is stat ism, not socialism. That model is clearly fallacy
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
"Socialism: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism."
Or to quote Lenin: "The goal of socialism is communism."
Are you being intentionally dense?
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Holy fuck, are you new to poli sci? Please explain to me how a statist dictatorship is socialism? It's not, isms are tools for shaping state not states themselves. Socialistic tendencies have yet to blow up Norway, what's going on there? Just because you can regitate northamerican political tradition understandings does not it so in the rest of the world. Don't even try UK politics you'll see dirty commies everywhere.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Haha have you looked at their buget surplus due to their nationalized oil? Lolololololol don't hold your breath. I'm guessing you're the kind of person that doesn't realize you participate in socialism when you join the military. Even in the US.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Some public services =/= socialism.
But you are right, some policies in the US could be found in an outright socialist state. Welfare, social security, planned parenthood clinics to name a few. There's some nuance that goes into it. But you know that, you've taken poli sci.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Right. Isms are tools for shaping state not states themselves. So where the fuck was a socialist nation is history. Statism and American political traditions is what you're feeding me.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
How about the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)?
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Yeah and north Korea is the people's Republic what's your point?
1 kerouacrimbaud 2018-03-06
Horseshoe model is not very useful beyond broad brushstrokes. Yes, Stalin and Hitler were monsters, but they organized their societies in different ways.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Yes, two equally destructive opposite ends of the scale, Fascism and Communism.
1 MuchoMaas49 2018-03-06
He said that fascism is the merging of corporation and state. But of a difference there bud.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
And what would you call the incestuous climate of lobbyists making policy, and policy makers retiring to cushy corporate positions?
What is the difference between government seizing corporations, and corporations seizing government?
1 MuchoMaas49 2018-03-06
I don't disagree with you that the lines are being skewed, I just think it's best to quote people correctly.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Fair enough. But you implied that his interpretation was wrong, not that he misquoted Mussolini.
Corporatism: the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
1 Hektik352 2018-03-06
Which is the new term Oligarchy.
1 truthgoblin 2018-03-06
Get out of here! Shoo!
1 Error_Lord 2018-03-06
We can read the words to you if it helps but we can't make you understand.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
I don't get it. I explicitly asked for an explanation, and you ask if I want you to explain it to me? Of course I want you to explain it to me.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
It seems that said people throwing out the 1984 blanket statement also seem to thrive on TD. Makes sense but also sad that, as you said, none of these people seem to have actually read the book aside from the back panel.
1 Error_Lord 2018-03-06
Oh goody did I make the res list?? I look forward to the character attack fallacies instead of structured argument. But thank you for your sole contribution to the conversation with "Members of The_Donald do x" where x is the thing the other account was complaining about.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
Just noticing a trend. If you claim said trend is false, then prove it wrong.
Granted it is a little late now.
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
So as much as I'd like to throw out those character attacks as you clearly expect that, I would rather ask a question. When was the last time you read through 1984? And can you explain the actual relation to a private company deciding what user content to display?
1 Error_Lord 2018-03-06
You have read the book 3 times and you make it apparent that you still don't understand the simple "call it something else" nature of propaganda. No explanation offered to you will be satisfactory. The whole point is that people do one thing while saying another. You need things spelled out for you. You're the easy target for narrative.
Take a critical thinking course.
1 MuchoMaas49 2018-03-06
You need things spelled out for you? Like proof and shit? Just shut up take this widespread hysteria from the hands of anonymous internet posters instead!
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
Perhaps because "sow confusion among the electorate" is a broad meaningless term. You can sow confusion among the electorate by telling them the truth if they are living a lie, such as "russia interfered with the election!" while ignoring israeli and chinese interference across the board.
1 dantepicante 2018-03-06
I recognize your username from previous debates. I'ma go ahead and declare that you are not "on the level".
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
You can read, we fucking get it.
1 BlueZarex 2018-03-06
OK, I will entertain your troll.
The parallels and similarities revolve around the censoring of differing opinions and thought. In 1984, one was not allowed to speak or even think about anything that was not approved ministry of truth content. What the fear is on reddit, is that reddit, although a private company, might shut down differing opinions at the governments behest. That one might be punished for questioning the status quo. That is the similarity.
Now, I never go around throwing out 1984 references as I don't feel it is a convincing argument to others. Realize, that for the bulk of redditors, this is about "the donald" subreddit. Its not. Banning that subreddit wouldnt solve the problem. The users would just move into other subreddits, escaping the containment of their subreddit, spreading their messaging in a way we cant easily ignore it. Given that it wouldn't solve "the problem", and that it wouldn't be effective in any way, I don't feel its an important first step. And what is the second and third steps when this first step doesn't work? I think banning all bots, even the "good ones" and then individual users is a better approach, but even that is problematic.
I do see danger in silencing people. I think we are seeing the effects of people being silenced for the last 20ish years in many many ways. Silencing people doesnt change minds. Silencing people further isolates them from society. They will never change and only get worse and more extreme if they get kicked out.
Furthermore, reddit says that in their mass cleanup, they got rid of detectable bad actors (probably bots or the more extreme users). They say the rest are regular people who unwittingly were influenced by the bad actors. Well, how do you deal with that? I haven't seen one redditor who wants reddit Admins to "do more" actually come up with options. They are stuck on the idea that simply banning the Donald will work. So how does banning the Donald solve the problem?
Realize that the Russian influence campaign didn't create sentiments in a vacuum. It was effective because it used real feelings and sentiments of the populous and amplified it. Its reminds me of the rust belt who formally voted for obama, turning to trump. They didnt do so "because of russia". Its possible that Russia was the only entity paying attention to how they felt though. The Democrats certainly missed the boat. They were "surprised" that blue collar workers were even angry at their policies. So shutting down "dissent" speech is dangerous. You are not going to solve the problem of disenfranchisement by further isolating and ignoring people. Their sentiments are real. Its not "fake Russian news". If Russia amplified it, its still not "fake Russian news". These are real people with real feelings that Democrats took for granted and therefore ignored as a segment of their voting base they really should have been listening too. Same with Bernie voters. There is a big danger in the DNC chaulking up the last election to "Russia". Its a scapegoat that doesnt address the real sentiments of much of their base. Furthermore, the blame game, calling these people stupid over and over, blaming them for Clinton's loss is only further disenfranchising them. Its not solving the problem with how people feel, if anything, it confirms everything that made them want "change" to begin with. Don't forget, people wanted Bernie to run in 2012. The feelings were already there society. Banning the Bernie subreddits wouldn't be an effective to get these democrats back under the DNC tent, right? It would just further silence and ignore them.
1 Hisin 2018-03-06
If reddit was censoring on behalf of the government they would be censoring liberal subs wouldn't they? Republicans control basically the entire government. They are the establishment now.
1 BlueZarex 2018-03-06
No, because government doesn't happen in vacuum either. Facebook, google and twitter all got called up to Capital Hill to testify and change their content policies at the governments behest, did they not? Was not the government "Republican" when this happened?
1 freddie_mercx 2018-03-06
And the two party system is a lie anyway. The people on either side of governments are educated together, are in the same clubs and sit on the boasts of directors of the same companies. It's there as an illusion to keep the status quo and to stop the unity of people through divide and conquer. Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, White/Black Lives Matter.
1 Otto-von-Bolschitt 2018-03-06
this idea that the government careens back and forth between the control of two completely different philosophies every few years is dumber and more evidence-free as any of the more bizarre conspiracy theories here
1 lf11 2018-03-06
Which part of the government, though? The Trumpistas form a minority party even within the realm of the GOP. You cannot begin to suggest that the vast bulk of the US government supports Trump just because he is POTUS. Many (most?) are anti-Trump, often viciously anti-Trump.
So when it comes to censorship, is it the tiny Trumpista faction, or the bipartisan anti-Trump coalition that is literally everyone else in government?
1 Hisin 2018-03-06
I can tell you meant that in good faith so I will consider your viewpoint.
1 lf11 2018-03-06
Thank you, that is an unusually kind statement to find on the Internet.
To be fair, I don't personally think "the government" is sponsoring or directing this censorship. More that ideologically-aligned people in both the public and the private sector are working in parallel to achieve a common goal.
1 Rightfull9 2018-03-06
Well said.
1 aetheradept 2018-03-06
People like you are the bots.
1 TormundMembersOnly 2018-03-06
It’s been years since I’ve read the book, but I am a fan of Orwell. I think the most relevant parallel people are bringing up is the manipulation of assess to information by those in power as a key way to control the masses. If I remember correctly Winston’s whole job was to rewrite books to fit the government’s current narrative. I believe being in possession of a book that was not government approved was illegal as well. Today, in the digital hour, we don’t have to burn and rewrite books, those in power can just digitally change the information we have access to and most will blindly follow. They even have online sources to confirm that only their “facts” are true (I.e. Snopes).
‘Tech companies are private companies’ is one thing you brought up, but that is not necessarily relevant to comparison to the book. Yes, the government as a whole in the book fills the role of ‘Big Brother/TPTB’ but in reality TPTB are thought by most here to be a combination of people (namely: the deep state, Soros, Rothschilds, big media etc.) We know that many tech industry giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt (Facebook/google) where working directly with the dnc/Clinton/deep state machine, and in our world those are the people who have control over the information/narrative.
I believe what OP is referring to is Reddit (another tech giant) branding those with voices of decent “Russian trolls” as a way of silencing opposing opinions and maintaining control of the public’s access to information so that it aligns with the agreed upon narrative of TPTB.
In this age we don’t have to burn books or imprison people for their opinion to control access to information- we can just delete (or change) comments and posts, we can just call things that don’t fit the narrative “hate speech” and call people who challenge it “Russian Troll”.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Orwell was too heavy handed for the actualities of human nature. Even yourself here, too heavy handed with your assumptions and acceptance of a perspective as truth. It's more interesting than that, try brave new world, then prometheus rising then come back. This kind of censorship isn't even close to 1984, and your acceptance of the deep state boogeyman is pretty close to 2+2=5.
1 TormundMembersOnly 2018-03-06
Dude, I’m just responding to someone’s comment about the parallels between Reddit censoring and the book 1984. I’m not saying it’s to the same level, I’m saying there are similarities.
Last I checked this was the conspiracy sub, we regularly hypothesize about everything from entities like the deep sate or bilderberg or other secret societies, to the existence of the supernatural or extraterrestrial influence on the building of the pyramids. If you’re going to mock my statements, and claim a conspiracy I’m considering is “2+2=5”, maybe this isn’t he place for you.
I miss the days when this place was about having a dialogue and finding the truth together, not attacking people personally and just shooting down any post you don’t agree with.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Worked for infowars homie. Been on this sub for years. I'm saying if you're going to venerate a thoroughly disproven book with a high school reading level as some conspiracy sub format, then maybe this place isn't for you. Elevate your game
1 TormundMembersOnly 2018-03-06
I didn’t know works of fiction could be ‘disproven’ TIL
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Well maybe you should look into why Orwell wrote that book, who he was and what happened to the people he wrote the book about. Hint:it was zee Germans.
1 1_point_1_day_ago 2018-03-06
If you think the idea of a "deep state" isn't conpletely in line with human nature and every single piece of documentation we have about huiman nature for the last 3000+ years, then you are a fool.
Read more history.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Oh yea, give me an actual historical example that hasn't almost immediately been found out or had their power structures eroded? Hashassins? Jacobins? Every aristocracy ever? How about the Hapsbergs they actually did manage to consoladate and then bred themselves out of existence? Don't confuse intelligence communities for secret power structures, read more history.
1 1_point_1_day_ago 2018-03-06
So... exactly what is happening in the real world? Lol. The argument was never that "there is a secret society that has existed from day one". The argument is that oligarchies and "deep state"-style control is perfectly in line with every thing history tells us about human nature.
You yourself have just listed a fraction of the numerous examples that show that it is perfectly natural and overtly commonplace for humans to seek power and consolidate their power at the expense of others.
Just because every form of rule, throughout history, has collapsed or eroded over time, does not mean that it isn't part of human nature to build exclusive structures of power.
In fact, the ancient Greek oligarchs didn't have the boosted ability to spread propoganda that the internet provides. They didn't have nearly as extensive a capability as to gather data on everyone's online activities, television habits, porn habits, tax records, etc. They didnt have the ability to monitor phone calls, internet searches, read emails.
So, if anything, the state of technological advancement has empowered the power-seeking side of human nature for those who wish to capitalise on it.
So, really, it's up to you to demonstrate that power-seeking people don't exist, and that it would be impossible for them to utilize the things I mentioned, plus many, many other things, in order to establish secretive oligarchich control over industry and politics.
Haha. I'm glad to see you got so butthurt that you snoopsnoo'd me.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Oh hell yeah I'm coming back to respond to this, at work, but I can tell you don't understand my argument. As for your technology example you're dead wrong and I'll list the Zheng as examples, information was WAY easier to control in insulated societies, it's how we got religions.
1 1_point_1_day_ago 2018-03-06
Riiiight... And that that information was so easily controlled is why every religion is fractured into competing groups with differing beliefs, right?
Religions are just a system of control; people, in keeping with their human nature, often seek to co-op these systems for their own gains in power. So, again, exactly what ive been saying. And, gee, I wonder why people would attempt to insulate a state's population from a diversity of information? It must be because it's against human nature for a ruler to insulate himself against dissent.... right? Makes sense.
Also, zheng was over twice as old as the US when it fell, just for the record.
Ok, get back to me on your "lunch break"
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
The concept is inline with human nature, the "in-practice" it not being throughly shared and common knowledge is impossible.
The lack of available evidence and documentation in a world with infinite examples of such evidence getting out, would suggest the impracticality of your hypothesis.
1 1_point_1_day_ago 2018-03-06
Your argument here is a catch-22.
There are "infinite", your words, examples of attempts at behind-the-scenes control, many of which lasted hundreds of years before erosion and actual historical scrutiny.
1 contrarianism 2018-03-06
Dude stfu.
S T F U
1 Grinfader 2018-03-06
I've read and enjoyed 1984. Here are some parallels I make: like Oceania spying on its citizens, the big companies monitor their customers' behavior and use it, like the Ministry of Truth, to censor the news or change them through "Newspeak" words.
You can compare big communities to countries. You can compare admins to leaders. You can compare authoritarian communities to 1984.
Reddit (and most other big online communities) don't want to get rid of ALL propaganda, they just choose which one they allow. Like in 1984.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-06
There's a major difference between companies and the government. In Oceania, there is no alternative, for companies there are.
1 iWant2HaveSexWithYou 2018-03-06
Wonder if he/she will respond to this.
1 lf11 2018-03-06
There are many responses to this, here are two big ones:
1) Corporations are granted charters by government and therefore function as agents of the government.
2) Do you have any understanding of how many companies control the vast majority of our food supply? How about news and entertainment? How many companies dominate both sectors? Yes, we have "choice," but the choice is largely meaningless. You can shop at Target or Walmart, the choice is yours.
1 miral13 2018-03-06
Why is it all red or blue? A bit off topic but I see all this red and blue everywhere. Pepsi or coke, Walmart or Target, republican or democrat. Why is it always a choice of red or blue?
1 lf11 2018-03-06
Easy branding has always been my guess, but I don't know. I'd love to hear a more educated answer to this question.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
But you totally have a choice of social networks!
You can choose to be censored on Reddit. Or censored on Facebook. Or censored on YouTube! And if you don't want to be censored you can use some tiny website that nobody else uses!
I mean sure nobody else will use it and see your updates but it's a choice!
1 lf11 2018-03-06
well ... there's always Voat, right? :P
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Yea! U can be censored on voat for not being racist enough!
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-06
That's not how charters work. The charters show that they meet the state and federal standards to establish a business. By your logic, every single corporation (no matter how big or small) is an agent of the government.
When any person uses a website, they agree to their terms and services. If you didn't agree (or frankly read) the terms, then you have yourself fo blame or you can take it up to the court system.
1 lf11 2018-03-06
1) I specifically stated that corporations are agents of the government. All corporations, including nonprofits.
2) That does not address the central charge, which is that at best we have an illusion of choice.
1 schmickler83 2018-03-06
In a corporatocracy, there isn't much difference. Are we there yet, have we been there for a while in reality?
1 arokthemild 2018-03-06
What about when the online communities and the users are redefining the words and narrative? Like accusations of false flag attacks or spreading misinformation on something such as global warming or fake news? Isn't it the prerogative of the corporation to enact their own code of conduct?
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
To add to /u/Zwicker101 in Oceania their isn't any opting out of their system, while with reddit and facebook you don't have to use those things at all and can still live a completely, normal, unimpeded life.
1 lf11 2018-03-06
George Orwell never imagined that people could be convinced to participate of their own free will. Aldous Huxley is the one who understood this part of the story.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
To counter your argument. This is why we don't need net neutrality. Nobody is FORCING you to use the internet. If you don't like what Comcast is doing you can simply not use the internet just like you cannot use Facebook
1 lf11 2018-03-06
Not so fast.
https://mashable.com/2012/08/07/no-facebook-psychopath/#RyD6aK.66Gq9
http://business.time.com/2012/08/08/does-not-having-a-facebook-page-make-you-suspicious-to-employers/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/#431da93a8f95
Yeah, nobody is forcing you, but living without social media risks being "unpersoned."
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
How exactly can I opt out of Facebook controlling what news OTHER people see?
Because that sounds awesome. Unfortunately the news other people see if that's who they vote for and that affects me
1 Communalbuttplug 2018-03-06
The same Facebook that European courts have ordered to stop following non users?
1 SKINNERRRR 2018-03-06
Apologies Mr. Only person in the world to read a book.
Get a grip.
1 OT-GOD-IS-DEMIURGE 2018-03-06
There's the "private company" excuse again, and it got gold. WTF is happening to this sub, smh
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
I passed no judgment on whether or not them doing it was okay, only that the claim by the top comment that this was out of the 1984 playbook doesn't make much sense.
1 OT-GOD-IS-DEMIURGE 2018-03-06
It makes complete sense that this is out of 1984. You should read some of the other comments below here. I particularly enjoy this one via u/Grinfader
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
I find these to be strained, at best.
First, we are narrowly talking about the removing of Russian bots, which is what the OS is about. So bringing in the "spying on its citizens" is a red herring.
Calling this "an authoritarian community" because they ban some, as you admit (or at least the argument you quoted admitted), propaganda is quite a stretch.
And claiming that what they did in 1984 to "not getting rid of all propaganda" is a ridiculous oversimplification. They banned and removed all dissenting views. It's not hard for me to look around reddit and see plenty of people dissenting to this very action, and to what is considered the major belief system of reddit (from this sub reddit).
1 OT-GOD-IS-DEMIURGE 2018-03-06
"Russian Bots" can easily be seen as an excuse. I actually has some eastern European friends, including my first ever job was at a metalwork company owned by a Russian Jew (owners son is still my friend) there are actual russian redditors who are not bots.
As you can see, we can create some sort of "excuse" and blow it up as a reason to purge those we don't like
NSA is already spying on everyone, something that was brought in because "9/11 terrorists." Its a formula: Create false flag/psy op, use said disaster to pass whatever the heck you want
It's not a stretch, its literally the beginning of a purge of "those who the tech companies don't like under the guise of ______(Enter excuse here). In this case, the Purge is happening on Google, Twitter, FB, YouTube's Purge started last week, and lo and behold, Reddit's purge is also coinciding with the purge of the other Tech Companies. Context is everything.
Because the formula goes like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
If its "Just Russian Bots" then no one will bat an eye, because majority are not Russian bots, while they can also systematically scoop up a few of the biggest dissenters on reddit (highest karma, most active, a mod here or there, etc)
Then after "Russian Bots" Reddit is already discussing banning T_D, r/uncensorednews, complaining that r/news mods are leftists like r/politics, and I think you can see where this is going.
You are simply seeing step 1: First they came for the russian bots, but I did not speak out because I was not a Russian Bot
1 EvilPhd666 2018-03-06
If anyone is curious or wanting to read - All of Orwell's works are available online.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Replying for visibility: the parallel is that these companies are clearly colluding with the party in order to officially make the party the ONLY party.
As what they do only benefits one party. The party
Thus completing the 1984 plan
1 cdwill 2018-03-06
He already knew the answer. He just wanted to push a viewpoint.
1 skyderper13 2018-03-06
gilded too
1 Otto-von-Bolschitt 2018-03-06
Orwell didn't realize that liberals would be dumb enough to not only let massive corporations fill the role of the Ministry of Truth (under the guise of "market forces"or whatever), they'd actually pay for the telescreens to be installed in their own homes
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/us-intelligence-chief-says-iot-climate-change-add-to-global-instability/
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
My goodness you really don't see how large scale manipulation of information has anything to do with the themes of 1984? Try the Cliffs Notes for fucks sake.
1 Smile_lifeisgood 2018-03-06
Fucking thank you. The OMG CENSORSHIP stuff drives me batty.
Fundamentally none of the people losing their shit over this would try to argue that I'm required to let someone keep ranting about whatever topic they want in my living room.
It's absolutely no different here. Learn what the Bill of Rights actually defines, morons.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Can you explain to me why private something like Comcast or Verizon or not private companies allowed to do what they want with isps? But Facebook Reddit YouTube excetera ARE private companies allowed to censor whoever they want?
did comcast forget to fill out the correct paperwork to make it self a private company?
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Well, not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China. . .
However, avoiding facebook reddit and youtube is easy, you simply don't type them into your address bar and go somewhere else. While, for the vast majority of Americans, it is either a monopoly or a duopoly, and avoiding Comcast or Verizon is near impossible.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Were else will i go besides facebook youtube or reddit?
There is just as many alternatives to Comcast as there are two Facebook YouTube and reddit
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Wow, did you just suggest that there are as many ISPs as there are websites? It's first thing in the morning, and I've already heard the most stupid thing I will hear all day.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Careful or they will "unperson"...err...shadowban you for thoughtcrime.
In a perverse sort of way its actually funny when Admins have to resort to shadowbanning because they know that it fully justifies a user coming back with alt accounts and then really engaging in a blazing hellstorm of mischief. When Admins shadowban, they are just "cutting off their nose to spite their face" because they take one problem and turn it into a dozen problem "hydra" when the person eventually discovers their supposedly "clever" tactic.
Yes, shadowbanning does waste the time of someone misbehaving, but in a war of attrition with "time wasting" as the goal, there will simply never be enough Admins to outnumber the angered users they are creating. They are fighting a losing battle.
1 PM_Me_Your_Fortune 2018-03-06
If the party tells me 5 fingers, then 5 is what I'll say. No matter that the 4 displayed are waving in my face.
1 verstohlen 2018-03-06
If you say four, you'll end up like this bald guy.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
If the party tells me Russia then Russia is what I'll say. No matter that the facts displayed are waving in my face.
1 pilgrimboy 2018-03-06
1984, I was told, was supposed to be brought about by Trump. He was who I was supposed to fear. Not the corporate tech establishment.
1 xxJrotheRxx 2018-03-06
tfw 1984 is about the government completely controling the masses and not a private business running a website banning people that don't adhere to their moral beliefs.
You have no idea what youre talking about, these sites can block/ban/do whatever they want in the realm of their own forum. the simple answer is, if you dont like the way a website/business is treating you, then stop using the service. Citing 1984 makes you look ignorant.
1 Grinfader 2018-03-06
I disagree. We're not talking about small forums but giant communities who have a huge impact on culture. Sure, you can stop using Google/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter, but you will probably become an outcast. Internet presence is getting more and more important. If you're an artist, or a programmer, or a small company owner or a million other occupations, you almost need to be a part of these communities. This need will grow, though the companies themselves may change.
Communities transcend geopolitical borders. Our actual nationalities are becoming less and less relevant. We don't care if the people we chat daily with are from another country as long as they're our brothers from our beloved subreddit/fb group/hashtag. Online communities are the countries of tomorrow.
1 xxJrotheRxx 2018-03-06
So then really your argument is that web forums are either more important than the government, or should be run by a government body? I disagree on both these viewpoints for a few reasons, more importantly, Reddit is privately owned and matter-of-factly doesn't owe you or your viewpoints shit. I'm not happy with that being reddits future, and you can do whatever you want with that information, but at the end of the day thats how it is.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
Your post has been removed for including the offensive letter "N"
1 Grinfader 2018-03-06
Am I now banned from /r/chia ?
1 Wait__Who 2018-03-06
The difference is you waive your rights on this site. They have full control to do what they wish, as it is in their EULA. If you don’t like it, don’t participate.
If for whatever reason they began doing this, it isn’t the government doing it so your rights aren’t being violated. It’s a private company exercising their right over their domain.
Just like how people could be shot for trespassing on property.
1 Grinfader 2018-03-06
I didn't talk about my rights, did I?
1 mainliningfbs 2018-03-06
The invasion of Russian bots spreading fake news is much more Scientific Dystopic fiction than banning people who spread propaganda.
1 rykorotez 2018-03-06
It seemed like for years 1984 was the guide book until technology made Brave New World the standard.
1 pre7e 2018-03-06
Agree, but no surprise, they do this all the time.
Thus sub will get hit and banned during this current witch hunt.
1 pushpin3 2018-03-06
Recycled scare tactics. The Russians are coming!
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
The NWO globalists are already here. We need to go after them, too.
1 pushpin3 2018-03-06
I'm not going after anything, but will chuckle while watching bullshit wilt.
1 iemploreyou 2018-03-06
They definitely didn't try to murder someone on foreign soil yesterday.
1 Murtank 2018-03-06
..didnt we do the same with Osama?
1 iemploreyou 2018-03-06
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
At least his pocket doesn't have the 1920's joke book you use....that mouse garbage is so tired.
1 iemploreyou 2018-03-06
Well what does he mean by we?
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Perhaps you should ask him instead of jumping to the conclusion that whoever his "We" is must be incorrect. Maybe he means his buddies at the local bar...who knows?
1 iemploreyou 2018-03-06
Another unsolved mystery
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
was yesterday somehow magically the day America didn't murder someone on foreign soil?
1 iemploreyou 2018-03-06
I dunno, how is it relevant to me?
1 Eat_shat_nd_die 2018-03-06
As a Saudi I am offended that people would talk I'll of our pure friend America. They and we have never been wrong.
1 Wait__Who 2018-03-06
Or was yesterday a rare day where someone isn’t gunned down on American soil by another American?
1 MaulPanafort 2018-03-06
How is that so many people in this sub deflect to actual Russian tactics of whatboutism instead of just addressing the point?
1 cjbrigol 2018-03-06
But now it's democrats using it rather than Republicans. Funny.
1 Eat_shat_nd_die 2018-03-06
Russia is a myth.
1 Sleepy_Spider 2018-03-06
Meh, get yourself a masstagger with RES and you would be surprised the kind of accounts that get flagged. Mostly false positives, but there are fuckloads of shill accounts that look insanely sketchy.
1 FrankJewelberg 2018-03-06
Great post! Agreed super common.
1 CaptainObivous 2018-03-06
I agree! They did kick ShareBlue out of r/politics... hopefully they'll do the same here!
1 PhysicsAg 2018-03-06
Source on them kicking out ShareBlue? Really doesn’t seem like it
1 standard_armadillo 2018-03-06
I think you're on to something.
r/russia is particularly aggrieved by spez's announcement that reddit will be hunting high and low for hidden Russian trolls.
Dominant media corporations - Fkbook, twitter, youtube, reddit are the non-governmental versions of China's censorship, which in the west absolves them of any kind of free speech adherence; we're a private company we can do what we want.
China is leading the way for where the internet is really going. And it ain't free interaction and mingling of ideas.
European countries have passed laws against hate speech. China recently banned the N. When does N become ----> hate speech and therefor ----> banned by corporate social media platforms who can allow or censor anything they choose.
You can be sure that's exactly where all of this is headed.
1 needles_in_the_dark 2018-03-06
Those who do not believe in Freedom of Speech for those they despise do not believe in it at all.
1 broff 2018-03-06
The paradox of tolerance.
1 DJSaltyNutz 2018-03-06
Freedom of speech doesnt apply here.
1 KmKz_NiNjA 2018-03-06
Because that's the only bastion shitty, racist people have against retaliation.
1 needles_in_the_dark 2018-03-06
Free Speech is a right not a privilege. Go move to North Korea you commie fuck.
1 KmKz_NiNjA 2018-03-06
I'm not saying they don't have that right or that the right should be infringed, just that it's literally the only defense they have.
1 axolotl_peyotl 2018-03-06
I honestly never thought people would be dumb enough to embrace this level of tyranny with open arms.
The power of fear is formidable when weaponized.
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
They are afraid of something that is a non-issue, while ignoring massive swaths of corruption and interference from actual threatening nations.
Israel has openly attacked and kidnapped US citizens according to the reports on Hollywood molester weinstein, he used mossad agents to intimidate and attack his accusers..
Reddit...crickets.
MSM...crickets.
Fuck even here, crickets.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Its scary, isn't it?
The masses really are stupid and gullible, more than I ever thought possible. Its so easy for those with power to manipulate the masses into working against their own interests, and its a truly repulsive spectacle to behold. I'm starting to think that war is inevitable.
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
Or you could just not use reddit or facebook and TADA tyranny gone.
Mostly because what you're describing isn't tyranny.
1 TDMAC14 2018-03-06
China is leading the way for where the internet is really going. And it ain't the free interaction and mingling of ideas.
What bothers me the most is the people- especially on this sub- who are myopic enough to support it just because it's currently happening to people they disagree with. To say it's disappointing is an understatement.
1 RegularJerk 2018-03-06
Are you retarded by any chance?
1 Dahti 2018-03-06
I pointed it out in the announcement thread (that this is pretty much creating a Star of Russia) and got 300 down votes.
Why not just crack down on bots?
1 Luvs2Spooooge 2018-03-06
Yep.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
It is funny that I give people firsthand sources and still get attacked. There is a video of Obama saying it is not possible to rig the election. Of course, he said this when he was sure Hillary would win. The ironic thing is Obama and Hillary tried to rig the election.
1 cdwill 2018-03-06
Downvotes prove your point. You can avoid them by altering the spelling of some words to prevent bot targeting.
1 DesignGhost 2018-03-06
It's interesting how much you are being downvoted.
1 denreyc 2018-03-06
What's so interesting about it? Did the bots target his comment? If so, why didn't he "alter the spelling of some words to prevent" it?
Is every downvoted comment automatically true because it's downvoted, or does that only apply to downvoted comments you agree with?
1 cdwill 2018-03-06
Yup, there’s quite a lot of interest in controlling what is said here. In my experience, that can only be the result of fear.
Not all downvotes are bot targeting, of course — but there are those here that want you to think that it is.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
LOL. You got slammed.
1 byrningdownthehouse 2018-03-06
okay, let's see the video.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Here:
Obama: Trump should 'stop whining' about election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJB0Ag72bEs
1 cunolle 2018-03-06
I remember when it looked like Hillary was going to roll Trump right over in the polls, and Obama came out and said it was not possible for foreign interference in the election.
She lost and all of a sudden it's the Russians that did it.
There's no proof they had anything to do with it, but the hypocrisy is amazing. The USA has meddled with so many elections around the world to bring a favourable outcome to them, but will happily blame another country on an election loss because it didn't suit their agenda.
The USA were the ones who put Boris Yeltsin in power FFS, they even bragged about in on the front on Time Magazine.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
So that makes it right when Russia does it?
Why?
1 Denver_Transplant 2018-03-06
It doesn't make it right...it just makes our outrage hypocritical.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
I agree.
Those saying it's fine when Russia does it, but it's horrible when America does it are hypocrites.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
I’ve always been about the evidence. After Iraq it’s important we see the evidence. And so far there hasn’t been enough
1 TDMAC14 2018-03-06
Yup. The intelligence agencies have lied to us to further their own agenda so many times you'd have to be a fool to take them at their word about anything. I don't believe anything that comes from them until I see the proof with my own eyes. How many times must one be burned before they stop putting their fucking hand on the stove?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Except for full emails released by Donald Trump Junior specifically referencing Russia's effort to get his dad elected.
https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/884789418455953413
There has never been harder evidence of treason in the entire history of the United States.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
You said Russia but I think you mean Russian citizens. Big difference.
What efforts? How did they influence the election? These are questions you’ll have to be able to answer
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Read the emails.
On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Don
Hope all is well
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.
I believe you are aware of the meeting - and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?
I assume it would be at your office.
Best
Rob Goldstone
That's just one I picked out of the blue which references the "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" itself. Try again, please.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
Looks like Don Jr got duped into taking a meeting by a music producer.
What were the efforts and how did they influence the election?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
A meeting attended by Trump's top campaign advisors that they conveniently didn't disclose to anybody until the evidence was overwhelming.
If you haven't figured it out by now, you're either a shill or a dolt.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
What came of the meeting? Surely you can answer that
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Apparently something so incriminating that all parties lied on their forms when swearing into public office. It's being investigated now and no amount of shilling is gonna stop it. I think they have 5 indictments so far. That's more than any investigation you can name in all of US history.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
So you don’t know? But I thought you said there was collusion?
No one is arguing that Trump is corrupt. Just about all government officials are. But you’re saying there was collusion and so far the indictments have only been for corruption
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
No one knows exactly how far it goes...
All we know is that it goes so far that Trump is still hiding his tax returns, his appointees have all committed crimes by hiding the meeting, and Mueller has 5 indictments and counting.
You can't name any other investigation with that much incriminating evidence in all of US history.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
Yes, evidence of corruption no doubt. But you said collusion. No evidence of that
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
So they met with a russian agent and are still doing everything to hide it for what?
Also, remember that Trump is still refusing to enforce Russian sanctions.
I'm all ears for your profound explanation.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
It’s better if it comes from you. What reasons can you think of?
And yes, I am also against Russian sanctions for no reason.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Collusion. '
Now you explain your little theory about how they committed all these crimes concealing the meeting for innocent reasons. I'm waiting.
1 psyderr 2018-03-06
Oh I def did t say it’s for innocent reasons. They could be doing shady shit that has nothing to do with collusion. Or maybe they lied bc they’re embarrassed they got duped by a music producer.
What you’re doing is called “attribution bias.” You’re assuming you know why someone did something when you don’t.
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
Russia isn't the one turning the middle east into bloodbath based on lies, so yes.. At least in my opinion its just fine if Russia "interferes" in our elections.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Yes they are.
Ever hear of Assad and his chemical weapons attacks on civilians?
That was Russia.
That's what you're paid to say.
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
There is no fucking way Assad gassed those people, and if I was a shill I wouldn't so open about my Pro-Russian opinion.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
is what a paid Russian shill would say...
Um... Wut?
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
You going to just run this in circles? America had been circling Syria like a vulture for 5 years before that attack with no solid way in. Why would Assad do the one thing that would vindicate American intervention in a war he was winning? The only parties who would have benefited from that gas attack were America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. You're a fool if you think we wouldn't have done it ourselves to get on the ground there. You don't think a shill would just hit the report button and this stupid fucking argument?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Nice grammar, comrade.
Anyway, your argument is ridiculous. Anything that could be construed as serving America's interests couldn't possibly have happened? So nothing in history that has ever served American interests has ever happened? WWII ending was just a smokescreen? The Cold War never happened or never ended? You're ridiculous.
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
My argument is ridiculous, and your argument is that I'm a shill with bad grammar... I think this argument is finished.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
*poor grammar
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
And that is exactly what a paid Israeli shill would say.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Fair enough...assume just for the sake of discussion that that was real...one point against Russia...now how about mentioning the multitude of points against Israel? Did bombing school children with white phosphorus help the cause of peace any? Has kidnapping, torturing and threatening children with rape...calmed things down? Russia couldn't begin to catch up with Israel in terms of civilian violence.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Whataboutism?
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Sorry whataboutism isn't a thing anymore...ity was used to death by retards who don't believe that examples are allowed. Unfortunately, they can't be placed on mandatory psychotropic medications, so the term still pops up occasionally.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Were you just trying to be retro by bringing up Israel out of nowhere?
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Please tell me that Israel is old news because they got nuked and aren't there anymore...is that what you mean?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Wut
1 William_Harzia 2018-03-06
Jesus, you're daft. No one fucking knows who actually did it except the people who did it, and what's more the number of people killed in suspected chemical attacks in Syria is a teeny, tiny fraction of a percent of the over all death toll. Western media made a big deal out of it because the use of chemical weapons is just abhorrent enough to warrant military a military response (whereas indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is not I guess).
What an idiot.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
So...
It never happened....
But even though it did happen, it's insignificant...
And even if it's not insignificant, it's the Western media's fault...
How does the Narcissist's prayer go again?
1 William_Harzia 2018-03-06
I never said it didn't happen.
It is insignificant when compared to overall casualties.
Never said that either, obviously.
Yeah, that one doesn't apply.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
It would probably be an improvement over the bullshit we Americans are normally fed during election campaigns. LOL
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Agreed, and America has been doing it more than any other country. The only reason this is an issue is because Hillary lost. If Trump had lost, people would laugh it Trump complained about Russian meddling. LOL.
Besides, it was Obama and Hillary that sold our uranium to Russia, so how bad can Russia really be?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Until Bernie releases all of his emails, we'll never know for sure.
Sad, but true.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Yes, I was for Bernie back then, but he caved too easily. It takes someone like Trump to stand up to the NWO globalists.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Either that or he's a crook that hates transparency and won't release any of his emails.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Nothing surprises me anymore...
1 iamthedrag 2018-03-06
But I’m American, so I don’t really see how it’s hypocritical. America first obviously.
1 Synux 2018-03-06
Now they call hypocrisy whataboutism and blame you for pointing it out.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Its not a thing anymore...they beat it into the ground and killed what tiny molecule of validity it had in the first place. Now that demonization of offering examples in order to derail legitimate argument has been exposed, we are all better off.
1 ntschaef 2018-03-06
Because our current administration says so. If it wasn't ok then they would in force sanctions on them to show that this action won't be tolerated.
I'm being facetious btw... I agree with you. All countries will strive to enforce their wills on others. It's only the secure ones that can stand up to the bullies (even if they are bullies themselves).
1 rhinojazz 2018-03-06
Because it's in response to the exposure of widespread corruption. They're literally trying to shoot the alleged messenger.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Who is? Putin?
1 rhinojazz 2018-03-06
The United States intelligence agencies
1 wurrboutit 2018-03-06
Countries 'meddling' in other countries elections has been par for the course for decades. The fact that one single country is being called out and demonized for it should be pretty telling....
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
It tells me that people are finally waking up and are ready to put a stop to it, no matter how many shills try to shout us down.
1 wurrboutit 2018-03-06
Any plans on how, which don't require giving up your rights?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Sanctions.. Mueller investigation...
Again, there's no amount of paid shills that will make us rest. Remember that.
1 wurrboutit 2018-03-06
lol. Gotta give you points for enthusiasm. Even if its misplaced.
1 William_Harzia 2018-03-06
/u/tlydon007 thinks Russia was behind the chemical attacks in Syria.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
It does not make it right, but it defines the rules of the game.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Can I get a citation where Obama said it wasn't possible for them to "interfere" in the election? I don't believe he ever said this.
1 insidiousFox 2018-03-06
The guy you replied to said "rig" not "interfere", and here is Obama mentioning not feasible to"rig"
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
The exact quote from the person I replied to:
1 insidiousFox 2018-03-06
Already fixed mine before you replied. Sorry, was looking at a different comment. The link is still relevant, because it clears up exactly what anyone could be referring to about what Obama said.
1 hoopdizzle 2018-03-06
To be clear: Obama remarked it was not possible to rig election in response to Trump saying that if he lost they should investigate Hillary for rigging the election (since she is so corrupt). This was prior to the Russia allegations surfacing.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Yes, but the poster, I believe unless I missed something Obama said, tried to spin the "rig" comment into "interfere," presumably to make their point that this was only made up after they lost.
But there is a lot of evidence that Obama had been warned about this prior to those comments.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
I was on mobile when I made the post above, and that is why I did not include the link. Here:
Obama: Trump should 'stop whining' about election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJB0Ag72bEs
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
"Stop whining" is not equivalent to "it [is] not possible for foreign interference in the election" nor do I see in that video where he says it.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
I am not going to watch it again. Obama did say that the results should be accepted and whoever loses should just move on. Very sound advice.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
Yes, and most everyone has long accepted the result, but are just saying we need to stop it from happening again. Trump was calling into the question the legitimacy of the election before it even had happened and Obama did give the sound advice to him to stop whining... But he still hasn't stopped.
1 ntschaef 2018-03-06
I've had people use this "tactic" on me (provide sources) and (although sometimes they are solid references) many times it is simply an appeal to an authority that reports false information. It is all well and good to look for hidden information, but the appeal to believe something only because it is uncommon is a dangerous one.
All information must be critiqued equally. Burden of proof is on everyone and the moment we forget this we have been duped.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Pure silliness...burden of proof is only...and always only...upon the one making the affirmative assertion. There are no exceptions to this...except perhaps among "debates" between mental asylum patients, but I'll not speculate on where you learned this "burden of proof is on everyone" idea.
1 ntschaef 2018-03-06
Who is making the "affirmative assumption"? Answer: you are. Online there is no third party athority that needs to be convinced. It is always and only you and the person that disagrees with you. In their mind, they are right and you are "making the affirmative assumption". In your mind you are right and they are "making the affirmative assumption".
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
Are you really reading incorrectly, or just don't grasp that the words assumption and assertion are different?
Moving on to your claim about "no third party..." You are aware that these posts are viewable by the public and are not private communications...right? Isn't that the point of discussion forums...to see ideas from others? Do you seriously believe that no one reading is ever influenced or convinced?
1 ntschaef 2018-03-06
Assertion vs assumption: i could blame this on autocorrect, but as long as you got the meaning I don't care enough to defend it.
Hopefully people have their minds changed through discussion (otherwise why participate), but I would hope that this happens by providing proof and logic... not by appealing to the authority of the thread.
1 I_HaveAHat 2018-03-06
It never looked like that, the news lied and said trump had a 3%chance of winning. Fake news
1 thegeneraldisarray 2018-03-06
Remember when they also said that we MUST accept the outcome of the election? And that we should not be divisive but move forward as a country? Yeah, fucking hypocrites. I completely regret voting for Obama. Pulling shit like making American propaganda to other countries legal in America and pulling Section 8 criminals from Chicago to Des Moines Iowa because it needed to be more vibrant. He will be proven to have been a corrupt, anti-American piece of shit.
1 denreyc 2018-03-06
We did accept the outcome of the election. Trump is the president. Clinton didn't stage mass protests to try to have Trump kicked out of office.
1 REEEpwhatyousew 2018-03-06
You did maybe, good for you. Seriously.
Her though?
1 denreyc 2018-03-06
Trump was saying in 2016 that Clinton was going to rig the election with illegal votes and that if he didn't win they would challenge it. Clinton and Obama said that obviously wasn't true, and that whatever the election outcome was, they would accept the result in that context.
Now it's two years later and we know that the election was being influenced by a foreign government. Trump's win may indeed be less than "legitimate". Especially since we've also learned that Russian hackers had access to the voter rolls in many swing states.
However, nobody is talking about declaring his win to be illegitimate and throwing him out if office and installing Clinton. We've still all accepted, including Clinton, that Trump is president.
Sometimes you learn new information that causes you to change your stance on an issue. That doesn't make you a hypocrite.
1 REEEpwhatyousew 2018-03-06
Just like you're about to learn that the intelligence communities you've been bandying about have come out and said Russia had to material influence on the outcome of the election and while they attempted to access voter rolls, none were changed. Are you under the impression that Russia hacked DNC servers and released truthful information that helped the public make a more informed choice? Even though I'd kinda appreciate that effort, I can see an argument where that's distressing on a national security level. The democrats don't think so though, because they refused multiple times to turn that server over for investigation by the FBI. Huh.
We already know many illegals we're registered to vote and some did, though a full investigation hasn't been performed. We also know loads of dead people seem to be big fans of the democrat party, and we have from the horses mouth from the dem NYC voting commissioner how they bus people around and fuck the system in that was. We have video of Scott foval admitting to fucking the republicans by cheating and that they'll be damned if they ever stop. There's also the question of why Soros owns 2/3 of electronic voting machines and why those machines are programmed with the ability to give individual votes a decimal point tally.
So I'm sorry bub, but there were many legitimate questions going into this highly contentious winner takes all election. The sort of "meddling" you're referring to from Russians (and Chinese and whoever else) was known about by Obama when he made the statements we're referencing them. At the time though, they were certain Hillary was going to win so they didn't want to cast any doubt in the results if she did.
1 denreyc 2018-03-06
Despite Trump's comments, CIA stands by assessment that Russia meddle in election
Let's be clear in what they're saying. The IC doesn't think, according to what they've said publicly, that votes were changed or that voter rolls were altered, but they do think that Russia was involved in an influence campaign in the election.
Given the first hand accounts of people showing up to vote only to be told they weren't registered when days before that they checked and were registered, I think the IC has been slowly revealing more and more information about the depth of the hacking in order to not cause a mass panic by dumping what they know all at one time.
U.S. Intel: Russia compromised seven states prior to 2016 election
It wasn't "attempted", they were successful. And yeah, I'm sure they just hacked in there to take a peak around and then did absolutely nothing else.
A Russian Hacker Confessed to Hacking the DNC During the Election Campaign
Suspected Russian cyber spy Guccifer 2.0 altered a DNC document before releasing it
That's the thing about propoganda; it often does have elements of truth in it. But that doesn't change that it's propoganda, and when it comes from a foreign country it's not for altruistic intentions. I love the language you used here by the way, "help the public make a more informed choice" as if fucking Vladimir Putin was engaging in his patriotic American civil duty. Lol.
Alright I'll keep that in mind in 2020, I hope Kamala Harris teams up with Mexico to lead a propoganda and hacking campaign against Trump.
Well I'm glad you agree with our IC then.
They had it privately investigated by a company that specializes in that kind of work. Should they have also had the FBI look into it? Probably, but then people like you would just say "well of course James Comey agreed with the DNC line" and so it wouldn't really make a difference either way would it?
The point is, the FBI also accepted CrowdStrike's findings.
Do you have a source for these claims or should I just take them at face value?
Source?
Again no source. But I was able to find this one myself.
To be clear, he wasn't "admitting to something he and the democrats did together," so it isn't really "from the horse's mouth". He's alleging that other people do it. So okay, one dude claims that other people do something they shouldn't be doing. If he has proof, he should provide it so it can be stopped. Does he have proof? No, of course not. But all project Veritas has to do is find one idiot with a D next to his name that is willing to say some crazy shit and then that's immediately proof to you of a conspiracy to rig an election.
Another project veritas video? Go ahead and link me the raw, unedited footage of what they recorded in this video or else stop relying on deceptively edited hit pieces to make wild claims.
Snopes
Source?
https://media.tenor.com/images/49d7563ea0e41a307a889838b5930101/tenor.png
You don't have to put it in quotes, it's a real thing and people have been indicted for it.
Trying to downplay it by suggesting other people do it too? If they did, they should be investigated and indicted as well. Doesn't mean Russia doing it is okay.
Yes, but NOT BY THE PUBLIC. He made those statements to the public in a way that the context of the situation at the time would only imply the specific meaning of a response to what Trump was saying. Trump was saying, "Clinton is going to rig the election via voter fraud". Obama responded to that, saying, "No she's not, it's basically impossible to rig an election that way". He wasn't saying anything about Russia in that quote. This is like taking somebody in 1968 saying "we've never been to the moon" as proof that the moon landing in 1969 didn't happen. The context of the quote clearly implies that Obama was talking about Trump's claims of voter fraud. Not outside election interference.
At the time though, they were certain Hillary was going to win so they didn't want to cast any doubt in the results if she did.
Ah, that claim was more fun when Trump made it last year. But which is it? Was Obama doing absolutely nothing about Russia or was Obama spying on the Trump campaign and its Russian ties?
1 denreyc 2018-03-06
By the way, I'm aware that my other message was long as shit. But, you tried to gish gallop me and I didn't feel like letting you get away with it.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
I remember watching on election night, and I kept waiting for Hillary to suddenly take the lead. I really thought she would, but it never happened.
Obama: Trump should 'stop whining' about election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJB0Ag72bEs
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
"Rig" and "influence" are two different words with two different meanings
1 xjohnmcclanex 2018-03-06
But used interchangeably
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
No they arent, only by people trying to confuse the conversation
1 xjohnmcclanex 2018-03-06
That was my point
1 Sir_Edmund_Bumblebee 2018-03-06
Tom Brady influenced the outcome of the Super Bowl.
Tom Brady rigged the outcome of the Super Bowl.
Very different meanings.
1 xjohnmcclanex 2018-03-06
Exactly. It’s used interchangeably to confuse arguments
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
"Influence" is such a vague term that its meaningless. I influenced the election when I discussed politics with my elderly neighbor. My in-laws from Vietnam influenced the election when they told my family that they liked Trump. So who gives a shit?
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
Yeah thats totally the same as a multi million dollar operation conducted by an advisory government, gtfo
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Yea, you're right. I mean, just look at the kinds of weaponized memes these political geniuses were pumping out. Democracy may never be the same!
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
Yeah thats totally it. I really dont care what you think because as soon as that indictment gets handed down yall gonna be whining and we wont have to hear from yall anymore
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Indictment for what?
1 alexslacks 2018-03-06
Interesting...
Also interesting...
Starting to see a pattern here...
Before you write 'you are proving my point! The Russian shill narrative is being used to silence!', there's a difference between an obvious real American posting their views, and your situation. Spare us the BS.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
My account is 4 days old? And I'm posting fake news? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, Yagoda was a Soviet. You should read up on him.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
How much money did the Saudis and Israelis throw behind the Clinton campaign? Why is it ok for some countries to influence the U.S. election, but not others?
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
Whataboutism. Need a tampon?
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
You call it "whataboutism" and I call it Equal Protection- the same rules apply equally to everyone. There is not one set of rules for some people, and another set of rules for others. That is not fair and just.
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
Then make a post about it. The only reason you bring it up in this conversation is to distract from the current topic. Its called deflection
1 verstohlen 2018-03-06
Rigging is a specific type of influencing, typically an unethical or illegal way of influencing something.
1 YouDownWithFSB 2018-03-06
not in his native tongue
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Then which is it? Rigging the election includes registering non-Americans to vote and then having them vote, right?
Obama: Trump should 'stop whining' about election
https://youtu.be/pJB0Ag72bEs
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
Whataboutism. Need a tampon?
1 EatATaco 2018-03-06
There no honest people who understand what is going on saying the election was rigged. If they are, that is not accurate based on what we know from the facts, or they are misusing the word. At least on a wide scale. It is reasonably possible to "rig" things on possibly a small scale, but even that would be a stretch.
The argument is, and has been for a while, that they have interfered with the election. They have manipulated social media to sow confusion and division among americans and distrust of major institutions, allowing people to be free to believe whatever they want.
The ironic thing is that we have a lot of strong evidence of an actual conspiracy here, the Russians using fake accounts to sow distrust in the American population, and this sub rejects it as fake. However, ridiculous claims about Obama and Clinton trying to rig the election, for which there which there is no evidence, get upvotes.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
The lefts crusade against "Russian bots" is far more divisive than any scheme the Russians could've dreamt up. You seem to be intentionally dense for chatting on a conspiracy sub.
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
Bullshit. The media is doing everything they can to intentionally whip the masses into a blood thirsty frenzy on the the very specific lie that Russia made Trump happen, and now every time some one calls for proof, outs a bad source, or just flat out calls bullshit your side quietly moves the goal post so you can hide behind these semantics. Russia "Interfering" by dabbling in social engineering isn't fucking news.. and it sure as shit isn't important enough to start silencing people online for speaking their opinions. How far is this shit going to go?
1 thegeneraldisarray 2018-03-06
Wow that's awful! The Hillary propaganda machine didn't get what it wanted and now we're dusting off the ol' Red Scare because ya know, Americans (especially rural and suburban retards, right??) are just so STUPID that they need to be told what to think.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
LOL.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
It is interesting how they want unrestrained immigration from the Middle East and Africa, but not from the white Christian Slavic countries. One wonders what the true agenda is...
1 William_Harzia 2018-03-06
Another reading of the facts would be that the IRA was exploiting the polarization of opinions in the US (which existed long before 2016) to generate demographically distinct audiences through sensationalist click baiting in an effort to peddle them to advertisers.
From Mueller's Russian troll indictment:
And now the kicker:
In the context of a commercial marketing scheme, the fact that the online activities ran long after the election, the fact that the ads and tweets were not universally anti-Hillary nor pro-Trump, the fact that the entire budget for the scheme was laughably small compared to billions spent domestically on the election, and the fact that everything was so amateurish and easily traceable all suddenly make sense.
The reason the Russian trolls stuff was so sensationalist and polarized was not because they were trying to sow discord and division--it was because that's what fucking clickbait has to be to work.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Right, and none of that is illegal. Obama removed the ban on propaganda.
It is like they think these 13 Russians influenced the election, but the 100,000+ illegal voters did not. LOL.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
And what does that mean, exactly? Be specific if you can.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
I have been asking this question for a while, and it is very difficult to get an answer.
Have you seen this video?
Obama: Trump should 'stop whining' about election
https://youtu.be/pJB0Ag72bEs
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
They are such hypocrites.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Yep. I love that video.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
Doesn't "rigging the election" include registering non-Americans to vote, and then having them vote?
"The ironic thing is that we have a lot of strong evidence of an actual conspiracy here, the Russians using fake accounts to sow distrust in the American population, and this sub rejects it as fake." The Russians did not do this, and, even if they did, it is not illegal. There is Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, and it is no longer illegal to give propaganda to the American people.
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
Obama: Trump should 'stop whining' about election:
https://youtu.be/pJB0Ag72bEs
"However, ridiculous claims about Obama and Clinton trying to rig the election, for which there which there is no evidence, get upvotes." There is evidence.
Pennsylvania Officials Accused of Hiding Data on Noncitizen Voting:
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/pennsylvania-accused-of-hiding-data-on-noncitizen-voting/
1 Wait__Who 2018-03-06
There’s a difference between rigging and heavily influencing, something you refuse to differentiate.
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
I asked someone earlier to explain the difference. Maybe it was not you.
Rigging is registering non-Americans as voters, and then letting them vote. Rigging is also allowing access to the Soros controlled election machines so the votes can be changes or discarded.
How do you define influencing an election? Does this include accepting millions of dollars from Saudis and Israelis?
1 A_solo_tripper 2018-03-06
If, when, reddit does start banning dissidents, they'll/we'll find another place. Simple as that.
1 deebeekay 2018-03-06
Where like voat?
1 Afrobean 2018-03-06
Or steemit. Or gab. Or something completely new. Life finds a way. It's not like Reddit was the first message board on the Internet, we've been shuffling around since the internet's inception.
1 Colonel_Shepard 2018-03-06
I don’t know whether to upvote or downvote this. On the one hand I believe in a company’s ability to refuse their service, on the other hand I believe in people first amendment right and right now Reddit and YouTube are by far the most popular platforms, in text and video formats respectively, for people to voice their opinions.
With YouTube hiring the SPLC to police their content they basically flaunted their bias. I mean come on, MAC, James Yeager, and a number of other gun channels being banned or striked / flagged right after the introduction of the SPLC, but no strikes for jake Paul Logan Paul etc? Yeah fucking right. Not to mention the InfoWars channel being striked for their crisis actor James Hogg video. It’s so obvious that they’re showing bias. Yes it’s disgusting content but it’s also free speech, they’re not inciting violence or releasing anything but his name and face thatve been plastered on pretty much every news outlet.
I’m afraid for the future of society and our first amendment. I’d go as far to say all the assaults on the second amendment are distractions from our first amendment rights being stripped away.
1 BanMikePantsNow 2018-03-06
Of course, they are. Any legitimate Russian propagandist already has avoided this foolishness.
1 mysterion 2018-03-06
YouTube are banning right leaning accounts every day so it makes sense that reddit would follow suit. It's amazing that the people who are doing this all studied 1984 in college and think they understand it. Literally doublethink.
1 needles_in_the_dark 2018-03-06
You mean the same people who need "safe spaces" in college because "words hurt"?
The post-Millenial generation really needs to grow a set.
1 DemosthenesKey 2018-03-06
Damn socialists. Like Orwell. Who was a socialist.
1 mysterion 2018-03-06
Orwell was a socialist when he was young and fought on that side in the Spanish Civil War. But like a lot of socialists/liberals when you grow up and hit 40, the whole narrative falls apart. 1984 and Animal Farm are basically Orwell's rejection of socialism.
1 DemosthenesKey 2018-03-06
Animal Farm was published in 1945. Here is a quote from the essay "Why I Write":
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it."
1 DemosthenesKey 2018-03-06
Aw, come on. Don't tell me you're going to go all quiet on me now!
1 MaulPanafort 2018-03-06
Isn’t it doublethink when conservatives are pissed about a private company doing as they wish after they rant about it constantly?
1 canitbe73 2018-03-06
Well this is an interested spin that will allow people to continue to deny the influence of Russian trolls, while further convincing themselves they're right.
Not a great move, in other words.
1 NarwhalStreet 2018-03-06
I thought this was a really good article.
1 RonWisely 2018-03-06
Wow that is a really good article. Thanks for sharing. I hadn’t seen this.
1 canitbe73 2018-03-06
Thank you for that - that is a great article. You should post it to this sub, in fact.
So true.
1 NarwhalStreet 2018-03-06
Shortly after I made that comment I noticed someone had submitted it in the new queue. I don't know if it went anywhere.
1 BigTimStrangeX 2018-03-06
What influence?
I looked up the Ten GOP tweets and it just parroted whatever any Conservative says during an election.
Jimmy Dore, who's firmly on the left, looked into the "troll farm" and it was just a clickbait site pandering to the right posting shit like "six most controversial NASCAR drivers, number 1 will surprise you".
The VP of advertising at Facebook said there were no significant as buys from Russia until after the election.
I'm seeing a lot of accusations, what I'm not seeing is evidence Russia moved the needle in any significant way, especially in comparison to say Breitbart or CNN, who gave Trump wall to wall 24/7 coverage.
1 Prd2bMerican 2018-03-06
That's because Americans elected Trump, not Russians. And it scares the shit out of the establishment on both sides.
1 dank-nuggetz 2018-03-06
Lmao
1 Green_Lives_Matter 2018-03-06
Do you have a coherent statement outlining your problem with the above comment or are you just here to be a fucking dick?
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
I'm guessing both.
1 dank-nuggetz 2018-03-06
I just find it hilarious that you retards still think Trump is doing anything resembling "draining the swamp" or going against the establishment. They love him. He's a braggadocious manchild that is too busy Tweeting on the shitter to understand what's going on around him. Too busy dividing Americans with his rhetoric to realize the shady shit going on in the background.
This whole "the establishment is shaking in their boots!" shtick is hilarious. I really wonder how far you can bury your heads in the sand before it finally becomes too much.
Meanwhile he makes a comment about becoming President for life like is happening in China AND confiscating guns without due process and his supporters still slob on his knob. If that was Obama y'all would be out in the streets rioting for fucks sake.
Trump is a billionaire conman with billionaire conman friends, who have spent their entire lives looking after themselves and stepping on the little guy. Trump is entrenched in the establishment and has no intentions of "draining the swamp". They're not terrified of him, he's their useful idiot that takes all the flak for their fucked up policies.
1 HashCatchEm 2018-03-06
Lol allegations galore. Falling deep for that astroturf eh?
1 99PercentTruth 2018-03-06
That's fake news. 44% of all the Russian ads on Facebook were shown before the election.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Please elaborate on how they influenced the election. Was it influencing both sides? If they were sharing content that somebody agrees with and shared anyway, what is the problem? Can you foresee a scenario where an overreaction to "Russians" causes far more division and problems in the future?
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
Some people are very weak to the power of suggestion.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
No shit. Some people are still going on about "Russian bots" a year later.
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
Because their influence is still permeating all social media and thought.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
So you want to police what people think? Please tell me what thoughts should be stamped out. There are tons of people, corporations, and governments trying to sway opinion. How do we remove all of those thoughts from people's heads?
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
No one said anything about removing thoughts.
It is ideas that have been firmly implanted about whole groups of people by professional trollers and large groups are still gobbling it all up.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
So not removing thoughts, just replacing them with thoughts that somebody else approves of?
Do you not see how this could be applied to literally any media, government, or educational institution? What are these bad ideas? Were the "russian bots" not caught spreading propaganda for both left and right groups?
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
Yes they were, but in different ways.
If you don't see the difference I don't really think there is anything left to say.
1 Aceinator 2018-03-06
Honestly though, where are these Russian thoughts permeating our thoughts and actions? Everyone keeps saying that the don is where it all goes down, but I haven't even seen the don post touch the front page in the last 3 months.
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
I said all social media. If anyone takes TD seriously, they have a screw loose.
But your co-worker Steve who's all about apple pie and AR-15's loooooves to parrot and believe what is being put out there to create dissonance on his FB and Twitter feed.
It's about implanting ideas into people who go "yea! I don't like those people anyway, let's go with that!" whether it's based in reality or not.
1 MaulPanafort 2018-03-06
Similarly, people still think gravity is a thing.
1 bat_mayn 2018-03-06
Why don't you put your phone down and go look in a fucking mirror?
1 Murtank 2018-03-06
Russian trolls could not have decided the election. 50 million Americans did not vote based on trolls, I’m sorry.
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
But 13 trolls placed some Facebook ads (mostly after the election btw) and it affected the Billions that Hillary spent (while not campaigning in the midwest) to make the election go to TRUMP.
Didn't you hear?
/s
1 ChristianMunich 2018-03-06
Remember when you said the Russians didn't even intervene? Remember when you said everybody who believes Russia interfered is a shill? Remember when the President said this is all hogwash? Remember when you got the news that they really did and you changed your tactic to "but they didn't do that much".
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
The left can’t meme. Stop trying.
1 ChristianMunich 2018-03-06
Remember when you guys laughed about people saying Russians influence the gullible "low-intelligence" people on the_donald? You were pretty convinced this was all "shill-tactic" right?
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
It's not 13, I wish people would actually read.
Several of the "13" were whole troll farms. Only 8 or less were individuals.
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
Okay but Russian information troll farm the Internet Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s campaigns combine. And that doesn't even count PACs.
1 99PercentTruth 2018-03-06
Nice strawman.
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-03-06
Sure they did lol
1 canitbe73 2018-03-06
Where did I say that?
1 Murtank 2018-03-06
Then what's your friggin point? The entire world influenced the election. Obama was flying air Force one around stumping for Hillary. The entire EU was spreading FUD about Trump. Saudi princes were Twitter fighting him
You think some trolls got anywhere near that level of influence? Gimme a break
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
What influence of Russian trolls? Who is a Russian troll here? What are you even talking about? This is such a stupid conspiracy theory.
1 dmirkin 2018-03-06
look at shillsonacids posting history for example, that one is particularly blatant
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
That guy clearly just hates the shills here, as do most genuine users.
1 dmirkin 2018-03-06
I think that it's perfectly plausible that his posts are the exact kind of distrust the russian bots are supposedly spreading. There is no honest discussion with this guy, he tries to derail and troll on every trump related post.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Sounds like he is copying Shareblue tactics and using it against them. I totally understand where this guy is coming from, personally. They've mostly ruined the sub.
1 a_trashcan 2018-03-06
So Russian trolls is a crazy conspiracy theory but shareblue shills are everywhere?
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Uh yea, an American political organization with a known presence on social media and forums with this is way more likely than a bunch of "Russian trolls" who are fluent in english and care deeply about American politics.
1 a_trashcan 2018-03-06
Both are equally likely. If our own politians are to doing it for thier own advantage why would other governments? Especially Russia who aren't exactly know for playing nice on the world statge?
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Yea, its equally likely that there are some Brazilian trolls here too. Why aren't you discussing them? What's with the focus on Russia? I think all the Red Scare propaganda has got people thinking illogically.
1 a_trashcan 2018-03-06
Except it isn't. Your refusal to even entertain the idea there's Russian trolls in the same vien as shareblue trolls says a lot about your bias. One's a fact and ones absolutely batsbit crazy, says a lot about your partisanship.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
The Cold War has been over for a long time, but the media and its globalist handlers are trying to reignite it. The International Deep State and their ultra-wealthy globalists are 1000X more of a threat than Russia is. Sure, Russia isn't an ally, but you've got your priorities all wrong. Don't fall for their tricks and propaganda, please.
1 a_trashcan 2018-03-06
Oh i forgot that after decades of bad blood that it all disappears because we decided the cold war is over. If you don't think Russia and China and even European nation's have thier hands in here just as much as shareblue you're a fool. I can't blame you for thinking shreblues the bigger problem though, the enemy at home usually is more dangerous than the enemy abroad.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
I'd be a fool if I said that no Russian/Chinese/Iranian whatever trolls ever come to English-speaking forums. I agree that they probably do. I, personally, think that their influence and presence is vastly overstated, and yes, that the enemy at home (and especially the international globalists and capitalists that have no allegiance to any country) are a much, much bigger threat. That's all.
1 dukey 2018-03-06
Don't they do that already? I was banned from the cancerous tumor TwoXChromosomes (a sub I've never commented in) for simply commenting on a the_d post. I am not even a subscriber there either. This seems to be the new reddit.
1 djfo77 2018-03-06
That's just the mods of a sub auto-banning you.
1 dukey 2018-03-06
Yes I know. Banning users who have never even posted in your sub or who have broken the rules off the sub seems somewhat insane. It would be like being banned from /r/news because you made a post in /r/conspiracy
1 HokieScott 2018-03-06
I made a post on t_d just yo say the Amazon Alexa calling Jesus fake is fake. Seconds later I was banned from that same group. Just crazy.
1 steveinaccounting 2018-03-06
I'm really curious to see how many of us who comment and post here will get banned. It's pretty unsettling to watch truth and unpopular opinions get people booted.
1 needles_in_the_dark 2018-03-06
Well, it could be worse. Rather than simply ban us, they could be rounding us up for the gas chambers instead.
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
1 steve_doom 2018-03-06
So what social network will everyone use if the top dogs of our favoured network crush freedom of speech?
At the rate we are going, it won't be long before we have to have some sort of chip implant into our brains, and if we think negatively or outside of the box we get fined or arrested (obviously I am over exaggerating, or am I?)
1 cjbrigol 2018-03-06
Voat? I tried but not many people. And the ones that are all there are just racist assholes
1 TheUplist 2018-03-06
Chip? Hmm where have we been warned about this before? Hmm... (666)
1 RayzorDVM 2018-03-06
You can avoid the purge if you join politics and yell DRUMPF now and then. Narrative of reddit served.
1 Tookmyprawns 2018-03-06
No one yells Drumpf other than trump supporters. You might be out of touch.
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-03-06
Wouldn't you want Reddit to remove shills? Clean the dialog up so you're more confident you're speaking with true people?
1 somethingdangerzone 2018-03-06
If they decide to ban users thinking they're bots but are actually human users, would you still sanction their bans? What if their process in determining who is/isn't a shill is that their talking points coincide with Russian talking points. Does that mean we should invalidate their opinions because we are afraid that human users have the same vale sets as Russians?
When it comes to detecting boys, I'd rather have 100 false negatives than 1 false positive
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-03-06
The posters on this sub are constantly claiming it's all shills downvoting them, driving the narrative, veering conversation. So which is it? Get rid for shills or let them continue shilling?
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
The worst manipulation comes from tinkering with the votes. So more transparency all around.
Show the vote counts again. If "shills" are being removed I'd like to see the account activity. How would "shills" be flagged? Which subs are left off of the frontpage/all, and why?
1 Dr_Dornon 2018-03-06
Everyone wants shills gone, but the issue is Reddit controls that then. What if they just say all these people are shills, but they are actually real people that have opposing ideas but say it was bots? What if they use it to only ban the shills they don't agree with?
It gives Reddit control to ban who they want while not having to explain it. They can just say it was "Russians" or "bots" and no one would be the wiser.
1 somethingdangerzone 2018-03-06
This is now a commerical forum. Let the shills shill, but realize that this place is not some kind of bastion for free speech and discussion.
Reddit is here to make $$$, as are the advertisers.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
I've met plenty of people that are real life shills, parroting ideas without a critical thought applied. So no, sounds way more likely to be abused than be beneficial.
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-03-06
Isn't a shill paid tho?
1 GaslightManifesto 2018-03-06
Shh, you're interrupting the circlejerk.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
"Shill - a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest."
No you don't have to be paid to be a shill. Even if you did, how would that be proven?
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-03-06
In what way is that interest conveyed? That they personally happen to like A certain Democrat? Or that they're paid by the Democrats? A Russian troll on the Kremlins payroll or just a foreign person who likes to stir shit in the US?
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
I'm not the one suggesting we remove shills, because of those very problems you present.
1 magnoliasmanor 2018-03-06
I agree, we shouldn't remove all shills, but vetting out only a couple dozen actual confirmed by the FBI foreign agents is a good thing, even for the conspiracy sub, we should recognize this as a positive
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Sure, if it's proven. Whats the proof on their accounts? And will proof be provided in the future for those deemed as being shills?
We're on a conspiracy sub, so put on your conspiracy hat and try to entertain the thought: - How could this policy be abused? - Do people in power have a tendency to abuse that power when they stand to gain influence? - Do you take everything authority says as the truth, or might the rules be applied unequally or with malicious intent?
1 scootnoodle 2018-03-06
How do you determine who is a shill?
1 DesignGhost 2018-03-06
How can you be 100% sure someone is a shill?
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Found one!
1 AlcoholicOwl 2018-03-06
They have distinctive posting patterns you could probably lock down using algorithms. As other people have mentioned, they will farm karma on a few sport or gaming related subs, before switching to hardcore political content. If that behaviour triggers a red flag on reddit's side, they can have somebody manually investigate the origins.
These people operate on procedure. They are employees after all, they have supervisors and they have rules. if we can lock down on their tactics then we can suppress their influence on the platform.
1 gooderthanhail 2018-03-06
They only want reddit to remove liberal shills.
They will say that's not true, but if you have been paying attention, the people on the right don't have the best track record on honesty right now.
1 Dr_Dornon 2018-03-06
The idea here is though that they can ban anyone they want and just say they were "Russian Bots".
And everyone will go on their way thinking they did good.
1 needles_in_the_dark 2018-03-06
The world used to view the diversity of beliefs to be a strength. Now they label and/or ban points of view that they disagree with or seem distasteful. If they keep this up, the only people left on Reddit will be those who agree with each other and those who have differing beliefs will move to a different platform where they share a community of like-minded contributors (like Steemit).
The problem is that once this happens on a large scale is that you end up with echo chambers of users who all share like-minded ideas. Any arguments deviating from the status quo becomes something to shun or ban. Because these communities do not allow opposing viewpoints progressive thinking stops. Instead, conversations turn inward and nobody questions anything anymore.
This is the exact kind of 'divide and conquer' technique used by oppressive governments since the creation of mass media. What is even more troubling is how many people seem completely OK with it because the media isn't run by "the government".
1 InnocuouslyLabeled 2018-03-06
What are you even talking about?
1 jtcribbs 2018-03-06
You can leave now.
1 InnocuouslyLabeled 2018-03-06
So can you.
1 CaptainObivous 2018-03-06
Witty. Another graduate of the "I know you are but what am I?" school of debating.
1 InnocuouslyLabeled 2018-03-06
Well I was saying hello to a fellow alum
1 HildredCastaigne 2018-03-06
Oh, you know. Just look at history!
1900s: "You want an 8 hour day and a 40 hour week? You're fired. Enjoy living on the streets." 1910s: "Our soldiers are dying in the trenches and you're sapping morale on the homefront by saying the war is pointless. That's sedition!" 1920s: "The Bolsheviks are taking over. Socialists like you have to be removed!" 1930s: "How dare you suggest that the government and corporations caused the Great Depression!" 1940s: "Why should we fight the Germans? They're the only ones doing something about the Jews and the commies." 1950s: "Heard you whistled at a white woman. Boy, that's the last mistake of your life." 1960s: "Oh, that Martin Luther King. He's just a race-baiting agitator! I hope somebody does something about him." 1970s: "Anybody against the war in Vietnam is a coward and a traitor!" 1980s: "Who cares if a bunch of fags die of this gay disease? They brought it on themselves." 1990s: "Of course we don't want another Vietnam. That's why we need to censor our coverage of this Gulf War." 2000s: "Love it or leave it! If you don't let the government spy on you, the terrorists win!" 2010s: "The only good communist is a dead communist!" 2018: "The world used to view the diversity of beliefs to be a strength."
I know. Very American-centric timeline but I think the point stands.
1 artyyyyom 2018-03-06
I lived through or studied most of what you suggest there, but I am confused on your take on the 2010's. That quote seems more fitting for the 50's. I recall lots of talk of walls and borders, immigrants and the greatness of capitalism, but the hatred was directed more at brown people and terrorists than commies.
1 HildredCastaigne 2018-03-06
It's a reference to this guy: https://youtu.be/bgec9WX21ik?t=1m
1 TheGGB 2018-03-06
That guy is gonna have an hearth attack. FREEDOM!!
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
2012: "hey romney! Russias not a threat! Tye 1980s want there foreign policy back!"
2017: "reeeeee everything is russian! Its raining! Russia hacked the weather! Every politician i dont like is russian!"
1 Freedom_fam 2018-03-06
united we stand, divided we fall.
they want us to fall.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
They all go to the same parties, so yeah we don't exactly have an adversarial press.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
I did enjoy trump crashing there dinner the other night
1 exmormonphoenix 2018-03-06
So in other words, r/popular?
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
The bots were upvoting actual fake news, as in fake facts, not just personal beliefs or opinions. These "facts" were then spread all over social media leading people to believe fake things happened. There is nothing about beliefs, discussion or opinions being banned.
1 EaglesFanInPhx 2018-03-06
I had my account removed from reddit mobile app, and I had to re-link it. I do wonder if it’s due to my posting in a certain non-narrative approved sub.
1 WhiteSox1415 2018-03-06
Idk if it is because of this but my second account must’ve gotten banned because I can’t login with my correct credentials. I barley go on there but when I did it was just to say dumb shit.
1 stealthboy 2018-03-06
Everyone I don't agree with is a Russian bot!
1 Granite66 2018-03-06
Basically what can and will happen.
1 Bryntyr 2018-03-06
Its already happening.
1 Granite66 2018-03-06
On every type of social media there is, and then some.
1 Sleepy_Spider 2018-03-06
Try getting a masstagger to see where people post and you will find some insanely sketchy accounts. Tons. Most are false positive, but there are so many sketchy shill accounts. I think it is nice to know who I am interacting with anyway.
1 SouthernJeb 2018-03-06
Link to a mass tagger? Only stuff ive seen on that have been posts about extreme alt right people mass tagging here to ban in diff subs.
1 Sleepy_Spider 2018-03-06
https://masstagger.github.io/
https://www.reddit.com/r/masstagger/
https://www.redective.com/
It's not perfect because it acts as a catch all, but you can highlight the tag to see what they were flagged for and make you own calls. Redective is also useful for an overview of an account.
1 CosmicOwly 2018-03-06
Or a share blue shill or from tmor
1 PJTree 2018-03-06
Good
1 Colonel_Shepard 2018-03-06
Why?
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
Some people get really defensive when their world view is threatened. /u/PJTree is likely one of those special snowflakes.
1 PJTree 2018-03-06
I believe that there are a lot of actual Russians trolls. Their banter is easy to spot when compared with normal conversation and discourse. It only seems logical that Reddit would figure this out as well and do something about it. This does not have to do with censoring different world views, only removing the weeds.
1 Colonel_Shepard 2018-03-06
Yeah do that, but don’t ban subreddits. They’re very obviously using the trolls to justify banning T_D.
1 jwork127 2018-03-06
They have succeeded in twisting peoples perceptions enough to now completely disregard one of our most fundamental rights right under our noses and its pretty impressive.
I don't think people see much more than their social media accounts these days. There is an entire planet out there, full of riches, mysteries and beautiful things. On the flip side of course there are countless atrocities committed, starvation, degradation of peoples dignities etc.. that's the way it is. To impose an ideology on people that essentially tells them that there is a right way and a wrong way to think is worse than even the most horrendous thing a free thinking person could ever commit. They are trying to paralyze humankind.
We have truly lost a great deal here. We've lost the art that is human existence and with it the ability to learn and grow on our own accord and of our own mistakes, instead we have manufactured our own version of it and processed the entirety of natural substance out of it.
1 hoipalloi52 2018-03-06
This is nothing new. Admins of reddit have been banning/shadowbanning redditors for as long as I've been a member (over 10 years).
1 jimbochimbo 2018-03-06
Not dissent to popular opinion because it’s hard to say what the popular opinion really is. Instead you will be banned for dissent to views deemed undesirable to reddit and whoever controls the reddit machine. Anyone could be an “other” at any point.
1 dropdeadgregg 2018-03-06
Which Russ troll posted this.
1 verstohlen 2018-03-06
It's very easy to spot the Russian trolls and bots. There's currently a manual on how it is done and the results are highly effective and promising.
1 dropdeadgregg 2018-03-06
Funny...
1 axolotl_peyotl 2018-03-06
They are coming for me too.
/u/EXXIT_ is rehashing an old TMOR talking point here.
I've been posting from the same handful of sources for a decade now (zerohedge, etc), and all of the sudden I'm a Russian propagandist!
One of the sources I use is journal-neo.com, partly because I like their content, and partly because TMOR gets whipped into a frenzy because they are convinced NEO is Russian propaganda and I'm getting paid to spread it (it's not and I'm not).
However, it's concerning to me that a comment in /r/conspiracy that's accusing the mods of being Russian propagandists (without any evidence!) gets 57 upvotes.
If you're going to accuse us of something so dramatic, you'd better be able to back it up otherwise you're guilty of propagating this manufactured and divisive hysteria.
Bizarre timeline is truly bizarre.
1 EXXIT_ 2018-03-06
I have never posted @ TMOR.
1 axolotl_peyotl 2018-03-06
I never said you did.
1 zw12065 2018-03-06
If they really wanted to crush dissent, why is this subreddit still around?
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
You haven't seen what it's turned into? I see more official narrative in here then I do just talking to regular people out in the world.
1 fuckknucklesandwich 2018-03-06
How would that benefit reddit?
1 luckykobold 2018-03-06
It wouldn't. There is precious little critical thinking in this sub sometimes.
1 CloudyMN1979 2018-03-06
They'll still get their corporate welfare.
1 Captian_Cocksmith 2018-03-06
Either way the 2018 mid-terms is going to be a complete failure of "Muh blue wave" and the media will need another scapegoat.
1 iamthedrag 2018-03-06
But what if the blue wave isn’t a failure? Then what?
1 SouthernJeb 2018-03-06
Muh.
Thats just some dumbshit that needs to go away. Same as cuck did.
1 Captian_Cocksmith 2018-03-06
Muh cuck soyboy
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-03-06
But the left can't meme!
Right muh woke pedes?
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
Yes
1 ByWilliamfuchs 2018-03-06
So why are you still here op?
1 halfquire 2018-03-06
Came here to make a similar joke...
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
I got accused of being a Russian bot after saying CNN and Fox News were equally bull shit. It was funny then but a little scarier now that reddit is "cracking down"
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
Has CNN done anything like this :
http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-et-ct-fox-news-seth-rich-20170801-story.html
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Nothing exactly like that that I can think of off the top of my head.
CNN will be forever tainted for me after they helped sell the war in Iraq. All of the msm that sold that war are forever dead to me.
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
The press certainly bears some responsibility for Iraq but when your own government is fabricating evidence and planting witnesses it must be more complex than "MSM bad".
A free press is vital for society so I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is wise.
1 BerniesSublime 2018-03-06
Seth Rich was the DNC leaker. The metadata analysis proved it was a leak, not a hack.
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
No he wasn't and the random dude who did the meta analysis later walked back his claims.
1 BerniesSublime 2018-03-06
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html
Bill Binney, genius NSA whistleblower and inventor of the thin thread program, confirmed the analysis.
And so did the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
1 SomeoneElseX 2018-03-06
Those are both op eds. Do you know the difference between an opinion piece and a reporting piece?
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
Bull Binney is talking out his ass. I know your appeal to authority is bullshit so its irrelevant how many opinion pieces you post.
The article explains why in more detail.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong
1 MichelleObamasPenis 2018-03-06
FireEye's John Hultquist is talking out his ass. I know your appeal to authority is bullshit so it's irrelevant how many opinion pieces you post.
1 LosJones 2018-03-06
Look at this guy with all the stock answers. Tell me about Russian collusion while you're at it.
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
All comments are my own, what do you mean to imply?
1 PodestaDaPedo 2018-03-06
I thought his answer was well put and logical. Does that make me a Russian too? What's the criteria you're using to accuse fellow Americans of being traitors?
You either seek the truth, or you're one of those trying to hide it.
1 LosJones 2018-03-06
I wasn't accusing him of being Russian. I think the Russia scare thing is ridiculous.
1 MichelleObamasPenis 2018-03-06
Po-faced lie. Exactly who was your "random dude"?
1 Sandernista2 2018-03-06
he did not. Neither adam carter nor the Forensicator ever walked back a thing. If anything they delved deeper into the metadata to make the proof that Guccifer2.0 was a plant (made to appear like a leak), likely from the DNC through its Crowdstrike IT hit men, essentially bullet-proof.
The one thing we know for sure is that there was deep collusion between the DNC and Crowdstrike, with the FBI agreeing to look the other way (no checky of no servers). Just as the DC MPD agreed 9were forced) to not investigate the Seth Rich assassination..
Prove your point, will you?
1 PodestaDaPedo 2018-03-06
We know the leaker downloaded the information onto a flash drive. It wasn't a hack at all. There's plenty of evidence proving Seth Rich was the Wikileaks source. Julian Assange all but admitted to it when he offered a reward for tips related to the murder.
Seth Rich is a topic that always brings the shills out in force, which only validates my beliefs about his murder.
1 RalphWolfSamSheepdog 2018-03-06
They have a responsibility to be skeptical and analytical for the public. They did not do that.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Not that exactly.
But they HAVE been caught leaking debate questions to hillary clinton.
Several of there reporters were implicated for collusion in hillary emails.
Jimmy kimmel was caught directly colluding with chuck schumer to lie about Healthcare.
Cnn was caught heavily editing a video of trump feeding fish to make him look bad.
Cnn alone was caught lying over 150 times in the first 3 months after tye election.
And it's quite obvious to everybody that cnn regularly colludes with the democrat party to push false stories
1 Killzone3957 2018-03-06
Can you source any of these credibly?
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Yes all of them.
But i won't because any source i use other than some far left source you will call "fake news"
Its a fallacy u created.
Leftists say "can u find a credible source?" And then claim any website u provide ismt credible.
But none of the things i listed should be new.
Most of them are well known and reported on heavily (as opposed to minor stories)
So anyone that hasnt heard these stories is watching left wing propoganda
1 Killzone3957 2018-03-06
You know your position is flawed and your points erroneous when a simple question of "can you provide a source" sets you off an a ridiculous tirade in an effort to deflect the scrutiny away from you.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Im simply stating a fact
One: you wont accept any source i provide
Two: if u havent already heard these major stories youre a victim of democrat propoganda
1 Killzone3957 2018-03-06
1.) You don't know that, you are basing it on your own co convictions and lack of critical thinking. If I see an incorrect or biased article, I will tell you exactly where they are wrong, and then I will make the claim that they are biased and are "propaganda". 2.) I've heard plenty of these conspiracy theories heavy conservatives and alt righters have put out, but none of them have ever been corroborated or backed up. They are simply stating whatever they feel like and people like you eat them up without ever thinking independently.
I'm simply stating a fact
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Ok lets test it:
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Lets test it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/shocked-by-wikileaks-disclosures-on-campaign-j0urnalism-you-shouldnt-be/2016/11/07/85971252-a528-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html?utm_term=.64fb9f7a338b
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3912164/Latest-Wikileaks-dump-8-000-new-emails-shows-DNC-prepared-anchors-Wolf-Blitzer-Jake-Tapper-interviews-Trump-Cruz.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/bias-alert-wikileaks-exposes-medias-secret-support-clinton.html
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/22/chuck-schumer-coached-jimmy-kimmel-behind-the-scenes-on-how-to-oppose-obamacare-repeal/
https://medium.com/@bfaa1682/very-fakenews-cnn-caught-editing-video-to-make-trump-look-like-a-feckless-boor-in-japan-video-758f6e473e5d
Inb4 "all of those are fake news!"
Not to mention its painfully obvious to everybody that cnn is nothing more than democrat propoganda
Also worth noting: fox DID NOT collude with trump officials to report a false story
Thats just more evidence of left wing media lying again to discredit the one REAL news network on tv
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
I read the Daily Mail link and this was CNN's comment.
'Casting a wide net to ensure a tough and fair interview isn't just common media practice, it's smart.'
Do you have any proof that this is not standard practice? For example, that Fox News never did this with RNC? How do we find out, since Wikileaks and Russia only released DNC emails and we don't have RNC emails to read?
Do you think RNC emails will show no "media collusion" as you call it?
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
When even Fox News that jumps on anything anti-Demoract won't post anything that you can use as a source, that says everything about your so-called sources. The same Fox News that ran the fake Seth Rich Wikileaks story.
1 DancesWithPugs 2018-03-06
Lol, we have a corporate press that does what the CIA wants and a tiny struggling free press.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Fox didnt collude to report a false story tho.
I would venture that fox is the one REAL news outlet on tv.
Wich is why all the cia owned networks work together to discredit them with lies
1 MaulPanafort 2018-03-06
Imagine actually believing this
1 vanEden 2018-03-06
A free press is vital, to bad you and I have none.
1 bcrice03 2018-03-06
The government (deep state) is what is directly influencing the media via the CIA. Research project mockingbird. Media talking points are all handed out from a single point of contact. When people mention the words "free press" they sure aren't referring to any of these gov controlled propaganda institutions.
1 a1s2d3f4g5t 2018-03-06
the two primary govt mouth pieces were nyt judith miller and tom friedman, were both passing direct information from rumsfeld and cheney, under the guise of investigative reporting, without any investigating. i dont mean, "sources say," i mean "i'm in iraq and here's what i see." judith miller got a pulitzer for lying. chris hedges, also nyt, really did do investigative journalism and reported that miller and friedman and the admisitration were wrong. he was fired. never rehired. he know has a great show on RT that has gotten him, along with lee camp, branded russian operatives.
phil donahue had guests on who had direct knowledge of the bs of the WMD lie, he refused to stop airing shows critical of the iraq war build up and was fired. never rehired. his time slot went to rachel maddow.
so...yeah, the MSM wasn't duped, the MSM was a willing participant in deception.
we've never had trustworthy, free and fair presses. yellow, jingoistic news is more american than apple pie. hearst made a lot of money selling the maine false flag.
1 dubdubdubdot 2018-03-06
Free press? You're joking right. The press is bought and paid for just like the gubbermint.
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
"Lawsuit Claims"
So... nothing then?
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
Except Spicer confirmed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/01/sean-spicer-seth-rich-fox-news-story-dnc-aide-death
Maybe you could try an ad hominem or strawman?
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
Spicer never "confirmed" that they were:
According to what you just posted, Spicer confirmed that they were investigating Rich's death.
There's a huge difference between conspiring to push a story they knew was false, and investigating a murder.
Stop lying.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
All it sounds like to me is normal journalism.
Getting a tip from a source.
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
Except when reporters contacts Hillary about a story for her campaign's comment on it, it's peddled on here as "media collusion".
1 Natas_Enasni 2018-03-06
Lol that theory occurred organically. It didn't come from the white house or Fox, it came from 4chan.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Not that exactly.
But they HAVE been caught leaking debate questions to hillary clinton.
Several of there reporters were implicated for collusion in hillary emails.
Jimmy kimmel was caught directly colluding with chuck schumer to lie about Healthcare.
Cnn was caught heavily editing a video of trump feeding fish to make him look bad.
Cnn alone was caught lying over 150 times in the first 3 months after tye election.
And it's quite obvious to everybody that cnn regularly colludes with the democrat party to push false stories
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
No, the reporters contacted her campaign about a story they were going to publish anyway so they can add the comment to the story. They do it with all news subjects, including Fox News with Republicans.
For a good example, check this thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/82ds5f/reddit_is_going_to_use_this_elimination_of/dv9y76k/
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Except thats not what happened.
Hillary outright colluded with them.
The story youre referring to is not the correct one.
Hillary even WROTE questions for wolf blitzer to ask trump
1 Pulcifer 2018-03-06
Well they did threaten to dox someone for posting a meme they didn't like.
1 a1s2d3f4g5t 2018-03-06
even if it's true, obama legalized propaganda so...dismissal for failure to state a cause?
1 PodestaDaPedo 2018-03-06
Seth Rich was behind the DNC email leaks. That's plainly obvious to anyone who spends the time to research it. His murder had nothing to do with a botched robbery because nothing was stolen. His murder has all of the marks of a professional hit.
The DNC would love for the Seth Rich story to go away, but eventually more evidence will come out. Seth Rich was murdered, and I'll bet the orders came from someone at the top of the DNC.
1 Errol_Gibbings_III 2018-03-06
Seth Rich didn't leak shit.
1 HibikiSS 2018-03-06
Makes me wonder just how ugly things will get from now on...
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
This is how democrats will turn america into north korea
In the sense that north koreas ruling party controls ALL media and informatiom thereby rigging every election
1 0Kpanhandler 2018-03-06
They aren't cracking down on people like you.
1 Naidem 2018-03-06
CNN and Fox are both bad, but not equally bad imo. Studies have verified this as well tbh, Fox News makes you LESS informed than watching nothing, which is pretty sad. They both lie and manipulate the truth, but Fox definitely does so to a greater degree.
Although, you really shouldn't be watching cable news at all tbh.
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
Tell that to 60 Minutes
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Its funny u mention that.
As every reliable study shows the OPPOSITE
that Republicans are MORE informed than democrats.
That democrats watching cnn are LESS informed.
In fact according to politifact : fox has only gotten 60 things wrong EVER
Compared to cnns avg of 50 lies a month.
Admittedly fox is biased at times. But not NEARLY as much as cnn or msnbc
1 PORK_CHOPZ 2018-03-06
No it just seems people are skeptical of your claims. You have any sources or information to support the debunking or other points?
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
One: why should i provide sources but not him?
Why be skeptical of my claims but accept his claims wholesale?
Is it just because you agree with his claims? You don't like the things fox says so you're ready to believe that they're fake?
1 PORK_CHOPZ 2018-03-06
I’ve seen the study he’s referencing and you clearly have seen the study he’s referencing since you commented to refute it. So transitively I think we can both agree we are talking about the same thing. So while I could ask him to provide sources, we already know his source. Now I’m asking because you’re making points with no commonly known source.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/2339-republicans-more-informed-than-democrats-according-to-pew-research
1 cadhoit_ban 2018-03-06
Complains about biased study and then links hugely republican biased organization that, among other things, is trying to eliminate the need to reveal political donor identities, yeah, seems legit.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Lmao
Til pew research is hugely Republican
I guess that makes sense. Facts and reality are generally Republican
1 cadhoit_ban 2018-03-06
The CFIF.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Wich is not biased.
And simply reported on a pew study.
But good jpb calling everything u dont agree with "fake news"
1 Ayzmo 2018-03-06
So you're gonna go with the one Pew study from 2007? Because that's the only study I can find going that way.
I can find about a dozen going the other way, including one published in a peer-reviewed economics journal in 2015. That study found that Fox News viewers were more knowledgeable about pro-Republican topics, but less knowledgeable about pro-Democrat topics in a way that actually averaged out to zero.
The other issue is that this wasn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, but Fox News vs. CNN. That same study found that viewers who relied solely/primarily on Fox News scored lower than individuals who relied solely/primarily on CNN.
1 scottyfreemon 2018-03-06
I’m dead ass serious when I say this. My co worker has been stressed and dealing with anxiety for a while, her doctor told her not to watch CNN anymore (her normal news channel) because they literally only talk about bad shit. She said he referred to it as “doom and gloom”. She stopped watching and her anxiety has died down. Take that how y’all will but it’s an honest to god story.
1 Ayzmo 2018-03-06
I believe it. Watching the news at all is linked to higher levels of anxiety. The world is a shitty place. So is regularly viewing Facebook and listening to Christmas music.
1 Knoscrubs 2018-03-06
What a ridiculous load of bullshit. FOX and CNN are both bad, but no one is worse than CNN. They are basically the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party at this point, and cannot be taken with any level of seriousness.
1 mafi11235 2018-03-06
Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party. Hannity sucks Trump's dick as hard as he can in his show.
1 PodestaDaPedo 2018-03-06
That sounds like propaganda, and I don't buy it for a second. I wouldn't trust any so called, "study" without following the money behind it. There's no significant difference between the quality of their programming. Their views on the issues are different, and that's what tends to dictate who watches their shows.
1 pedantic_cheesewheel 2018-03-06
They do more research than just reports and comments by users. The admins can easily find out where accounts are connecting from. This is circumvented by VPN of course but they can also track activity and frequency that align with some known accounts. Also, if what OP claims is true they would have used that logic to crush the_donald saying all the moderators were Russian operatives. Peter Thiel would never let that happen and the sad truth is that sub is Poe’s law like a motherfucker.
1 Natas_Enasni 2018-03-06
Hahaha, oh my sweet summer child. Here is the exchange which got me banned from r/news this morning:
[–]todayilearned83 285 points 23 hours ago I've banned a number of them from this sub
[–]Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 66 points 23 hours ago What signs do you look for when looking for them? Do they frequently phrase stuff in a similar way?
[–]todayilearned83 116 points 23 hours ago I'm not going to tell them how they're messing up, but I will tell you I look for patterns and phrasing is one of them.
[–]Natas_Enasni 0 points 58 minutes ago I love that dumbfuck mods are basically admitting they ban people for phrasing things weirdly. Also, isn't Reddit a website on the internet, which people from all over the world can connect to? Why do you think it's ok to ban people for speaking oddly?
So stupid.
1 pedantic_cheesewheel 2018-03-06
I have no doubt mods will abuse this because mods can be so easily corrupted by the power they have over their communities. I was talking about site wide, admin handled bans and IP bans. Those are reviewed and tracked. Flagged a few for myself when I noticed the same account spamming the headlines from RT and Infowars over and over and most but not all have gone dark since 2018 started.
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
Mods even on here will permaban people for posting something like that based on Rule 10 of the sub, so I don't know why you're acting surprised on being banned and why you're complaining.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
Because some poeple just want to be outraged.
1 Natas_Enasni 2018-03-06
I'm not complaining about the ban, look at the attitude of the mod. They sound like something out of this subreddits comment section: "Oh they phrased that weird, obviously a russian bot". It's idiotic to think someone could get banned because english is their second language; or the idea that no one from Russia can participate in reddit comment threads without being employed by the FSB.
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
I don't think they really think you're a Russian bot, I think half the comments are tongue in cheek there, if you did not attack the mods you probably would not have been banned so easily. You just gave them an easy justifiable(to other mods, if you appeal) reason to ban you.
1 Natas_Enasni 2018-03-06
I don't think it's "tongue in cheek" humor to say you ban people as russian bots for phrasing things weirdly.
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
Again, maybe someone can run an experiment where they make posts like yours, but not attack the mods like you did, and then check if they get banned. Your case is tainted because you broke the sub's rules against mod attacks.
1 Natas_Enasni 2018-03-06
I'm not complaining about my ban; I'm complaining about their attitude concerning people they've previously banned.
1 not-slacking-off 2018-03-06
I mean, one is measurably worse than the other, by literally any metric you could choose to use.
It's disingenuous to claim they're equally bad.
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Alright, I'll say CNN is bad, and Fox News is really bad.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Alright I'll say fox is bad. and cnn is really bad.
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Where's RT in all this?
1 PodestaDaPedo 2018-03-06
Probably more honest than either of them, but that's still not saying much.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
True. Fox admittedly can be biasef at times. But cnn is outright lies MOST of the time.
Of course some people believe what they watch on cnn. But they are generally beyond help if they do
1 a1s2d3f4g5t 2018-03-06
fox doesn't bill itself as unbiased. you know what you are going to get if you watch fox. cnn bills itself as neutral, as above the fray. it is not. cnn is the more dangerous of the two for that reason.
1 not-slacking-off 2018-03-06
Yeah, cause convincing people that climate change is a hoax makes Fox (somehow) less dangerous.
1 mainliningfbs 2018-03-06
Do you have evidence to make such a claim?
1 WeRtheBork 2018-03-06
CNN is crap but to say it's as bad as Fox is just plain old stupid. Fox is caught lying more often than not.
1 Yevad 2018-03-06
I know how it feels to have your own opinion, I've been banned for brigading and all sorts off ridiculous shit just for showing an alternate view point. They are even making the word alternate (alt) a negative term now!!! Alt right, alt left, they now associate alternative with terrorism.
I stated that I think its gross how Biden is always so touchy with women of all ages, especially young girls. His ego is so big he does disturbing things in plain sight.
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Guh that Biden shit is gross.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
How do you feel about Trump's sexual harassment, assault, paying prostitutes for sex, trying to fuck his friends wife? If you're sickened by Biden being a hugger but not an actual sexual preditor, the that sick feeling is you your mental disease.
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Lol what? Trump is awful too, just because I think Biden is gross doesn't mean I think Trump is god president, stop assuming ridiculous things.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
It's not a rediculious assumption when you attack an honorable guy, with no history other than being a little touchy over a guy with a laundry list of accusers and self incriminating statements.
1 otoed1 2018-03-06
Opinions about one person have literally no relationship to opinions on another.
1 TheSpaghetti_Monster 2018-03-06
Is this where we cry "WHATABOUTISM"?
But seriously, I don't understand why power leads to these creepy people.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-06
I try to live up to my username.
Maybe they'll look at other things, like voting frequency and ip addresses. If it is then I hope it's applied fairly to all trolls, not just "Russian" ones.
1 Yevad 2018-03-06
I hear you, people need to hear different ideas and playing the devils advocate can really show you different view points.
I know how reddit has been changing and they are trying to have so much control that I know that they have an agenda. We need to have an alternative to reddit. voat.co could be a possibility but there are a lot of trolls there. I think in the future people will be going back to message boards, Reddit is just turning to shit. It's not what it used to be.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
Because the Alt in alt-right means that you're more right than far-right. It's extremist in nature. Adding the fact that alt-right so have literally been committing mass murder and Kelly Ann Conway dubbed the term Alternative facts to try and justify lies and you get your answer.
1 Yevad 2018-03-06
Who coined that term?
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
I can't find a single pop culture reference to the phrase before this, and if there is it certainly wouldn't change my point and the fact would remain that she popularized it. Being pedantic and disingenuous won't change actual facts.
"Alternative facts" is a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the PresidentKellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer "utter[ed] a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[1]
Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" to describe demonstrable falsehoods was widely mocked on social media and sharply criticized by journalists and media organizations, including Dan Rather, Jill Abramson, and the Public Relations Society of America. The phrase was extensively described as Orwellian. Within four days of the interview, sales of the book 1984 had increased by 9,500%, which The New York Times and others attributed to Conway's use of the phrase, making it the number-one bestseller on Amazon.com.[2]
1 Yevad 2018-03-06
I'm not sure what you mean by that... but anyways sorry, I mean "Alt-right" where did that term start? Was it a self proclaimed term or a negative concoction of sorts? I remember that whole alternative facts in the news... crazy stuff.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
Probably because it's a stupid thing to say, you would almost have to be programmed or pushing an agenda to equate CNN and Fox.
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
I equate them in the fact that they're both bad. You want me to give a fucking award to CNN for being least bad?
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
Your statement saying they're equally bullshit, was bullshit and it upsets you to get called out. Are you some kind of easily melted frozen structure?
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Sick burn bro. I went back in another comment that said I agree CNN is probably less bull shit than Fox News. But shit is still shit my friend.
1 threesixzero 2018-03-06
I got called a Russian bot on Twitter for explaining how net neutrality isn't necessary, didn't exist prior to 2014, and that I don't have it in Canada but the internet is fine. No counter-argument was provided.
1 MAGA_or_else 2018-03-06
I love Fox News for the entertainment. Same as Rush. And they are part of my main man’s propaganda machine. No doubt. It’s obvious. All us Trumpsters know this. We just like listening to it because it’s nice being on top again!
1 kingofthemonsters 2018-03-06
Lol it's nice for a truthful answer
1 Prd2bMerican 2018-03-06
Get ready for t_d to start and insurgency lol
1 luckykobold 2018-03-06
That's exactly what a Russian troll would say.
1 GrinninGremlin 2018-03-06
And that is precisely was an Israeli troll would say.
1 BennyOcean 2018-03-06
Ah so anyone who criticizes the current Russia hysteria must be a Russian shill or bot, makes perfect sense... what impeccable logic!
1 luckykobold 2018-03-06
Whoosh.
1 iBoMbY 2018-03-06
The US will purge anything remotely Russian, like they did in the McCarthy area - only it will change nothing, because retards will still be retards.
1 TheUplist 2018-03-06
But the "spy" working closest with Trump's campaign wasnt a "Russian Spy" like the media says.. He was an American Spy who spent time spying on Russians.... Somehow that is "collusion".. Also... There were secret deals with the Obama administration and Hillaries people with the Russians over uranium deals. U.s. uranium from massive state lands was given to Russian interests literally by them.
1 MorrowdarkAnima 2018-03-06
No surprise there.
1 OP_YUP 2018-03-06
Voat time
1 howcanyousleepatnite 2018-03-06
That would be awesome, there's no excuse for anyone to be Conservative. It's simply anti-social behavior.
1 bilbobaggens 2018-03-06
Why don't they get rid of all the Pentagon and special interest bots that have been downmodding and trolling the real users since Reddit began?
The Russians couldn't give a shit about Reddit.
1 thegeneraldisarray 2018-03-06
Shareblue, CTR and JIDF have all been proven to be literal armies of shills but that's OK because liberal.
1 TheUplist 2018-03-06
Shareblue IS CTR.... Eglin does media manipulation for other reasons (CIA)
1 TheUplist 2018-03-06
Eglin airforce base.
1 bilbobaggens 2018-03-06
Thanks for mentioning that.
Source:
http://washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/eglin-air-force-base-busted-gaming-reddit.html
They're only one of many, though.
1 Synux 2018-03-06
The y YouTube playbook, I see. Jimmy Dore might have a perspective on this.
1 HistoryNerdi21 2018-03-06
Are they going to delete my account because I enjoy Batman vs Superman?
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-03-06
No. But they should.
1 wolfie1967 2018-03-06
Bullshit
1 orwelltheprophet 2018-03-06
Reddit is pretty extreme left wing. Suppression of thought, speech, and action come with Marxist ideology.
1 Colonel_Shepard 2018-03-06
You’re right and hey being downvoted..... hmmmm
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-03-06
Go to /r/the_donald and say you don't agree with Trump on something.
1 orwelltheprophet 2018-03-06
Banned there.
1 BansRcensorship 2018-03-06
Sure, and this sub didn't do the same thing.
1 PM_Me_Your_Fortune 2018-03-06
If the party tells me 5 fingers, then 5 is what I'll say. No matter that the 4 displayed are waving in my face.
1 Dinkir9 2018-03-06
So like, if I'm learning the language and posting on Russian subreddits (unrelated to politics). What are the chances I get myself shadowbanned?
1 EatShitDieOld 2018-03-06
Aw the snowflakes from T_D are getting scared haha. Don’t worry guys you can always go back to the Daily Stormer
1 DesignGhost 2018-03-06
"Anyone who supports the president is a Racist-Nazi-Sexist!!" You are just fueling the fire buddy. People are sick and tired of the lefts bullshit. That pendulum has been swinging to the right fast and faster.
1 workwork_workwork 2018-03-06
TD has very little to do with supporting Trump, that's just a cover, and more to do with supporting white nationalist.
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-03-06
Then why did Hilary get more votes?
1 EatShitDieOld 2018-03-06
The lefts just a tired of the rights bullshit. Settle down little guy.
1 MaulPanafort 2018-03-06
It's literally amazing that the right got into bed with Russia because they got triggered over a black dude in the oval office.
1 Aezen 2018-03-06
gonna be weird when this sub is empty
1 vegi71 2018-03-06
I'm shadow banned on some subreddits. I'm a Russian bot and I didn't even know it.
1 The_All_Golden 2018-03-06
This is why I am very anti-censorship. You want to know why people continue to fall for this propaganda? Because we have never been encouraged to think for ourselves. Our go to has always been reporting any information we find repulsive to an authority so it can be neatly removed. People can't ignore what they don't like anymore, they have to see it completely removed. We also can't judge reality for ourselves, we need an authority to "fact-check" and let us know what's okay to believe.
1 thenoblitt 2018-03-06
Censoring opinions like republican, democrat, independent or whatever is bad. But censoring things like users from /r/the_donald saying things like http://archive.is/aKdzj#selection-3213.0-3220.0 Where a person calls for a parkland survivor to be hung, is perfectly acceptable.
1 The_All_Golden 2018-03-06
Outrageously offensive posts and calls for death or violence should be removed (and taken seriously and investigated, as that would have stopped the Parkland shooter), I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as it swings both ways, as there are far left subs practically dedicated to violence that are still kicking while
1 KmKz_NiNjA 2018-03-06
What subs are those?
1 Dahti 2018-03-06
503 on that link...
1 thenoblitt 2018-03-06
works for me
1 thrownawayzs 2018-03-06
1 LiquidMotion 2018-03-06
So?
1 FlyThai 2018-03-06
Its crazy the amount of people who believe Freedom of Speech means Freedom of Consequence for Speech
1 Delirium101 2018-03-06
Nice try with this post, Comrade—I mean, OP
1 LDLover 2018-03-06
meeeeeeenya zavooooooooot ldlover.
delete me bc i work for vlad
spassssssiiiiba
1 inkw3ll 2018-03-06
What proof do you have (beyond your general distrust and paranoia) to show this is their agenda, or have shown this behavior previously (using Russian Trolls) as a pretext to shadowban people?
BC if you don't have evidence, your assertion means squat.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-03-06
I can't believe low effort conspiracies get traction just because they go along with a pro-Trump narrative, but anything that is anti-Trump, even if it's a 3 page essay of conspiracy will get downvoted. This sub is trash sometimes.
1 HoundDogs 2018-03-06
You've really got to look at this through the lens of a cult.
-Look at Scientology: The entire group of ideas are made up by people with clear psychological problems and a desire for power. Many words are created out of thin air or defined however they feel like defining them. Members are ostracized for questioning the faith, and people who try to stop them are attacked.
-Look at Modern Feminism: The entire group of ideas are made up by people with clear psychological problems and a desire for power. Words are created out of thin air or defined however they feel like defining them. Members are aggressively ostracized for questioning the group, and people who try to stop them are attacked.
-Now look at modern social media culture: The group has defined it's values based, significantly, on the modern feminism from above. Words are defined however they feel like defining them. Narratives, with very little factual support, are built up and held as absolute truth. Questioning anything from within the group leads to ostracism and, thus, a desire to toe the line. Objections lead to being aggressively attacked. Direct opposition is (beginning to be) banned entirely.
This is a pattern. We've weaponized cultism. The longer I watch this happen the less I believe it's organic and the more I truly believe we're being played like pawns on a grand chessboard.
1 Capt_Smashnballs 2018-03-06
Just a broad accusation with no sources or links. Seems legit
1 D33PLyManic 2018-03-06
Stupid sluts.
1 TheMadBonger 2018-03-06
The cabal is doing a full court press trying to get the censorship ready to go. They are afraid damaging leaks are coming next and they want to silence any dissent for the upcoming elections. It's too late. I believe the overton window has shifted and people just need some real deal physical evidence or results shown on TV then the revolution is on and popping.
1 not_shadowbanned_yet 2018-03-06
This SJW shit isn't really popular. It's pushed for political reasons
1 SoCo_cpp 2018-03-06
Complain about it and get the expected response "Found the Russian troll" ...."but it was a joke, you shouldn't be taking this seriously, don't ruin my mood"
1 Colonel_Shepard 2018-03-06
If they ban The_Donald then I’m going to be seriously rethinking spending my time on Reddit. I can understand banning users who incite violence or actually break rules, but banning a whole sub? Fuckthat. Coontown and fatpeoplehate, as disgusting subs as they were, deserved a voice. It’s free speech ffs. As long as you aren’t inciting violence or spreading other people’s information I don’t see the issue; it’s just Reddit saying “Hey you’re banned for being bad for my bottom line”
1 Jaereth 2018-03-06
Yeah. Pretty sure everyone except liberal retards sees this coming.
I asked in Spez's thread "Since you are coming out saying you are going to take action against propaganda, can we at least know what the working definition of propaganda is going to be?"
No response.
1 Prince_pepe 2018-03-06
Off we go.to.voat then.
1 TUMS_FESTIVAL 2018-03-06
Stop. Wait. Don't go.
1 Prince_pepe 2018-03-06
I will miss you xxx
1 WestCoastHippy 2018-03-06
HAHAHA If Reddit and Twitter start banning shadow accounts or troll accounts or (insert lingo here) they'll have nothing to inflate their numbers and cheat their advertisers.
1 Turkerthelurker 2018-03-06
Assuming those rules are applied evenly across the board (they won't be).
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
posts pro trump comment
Reddit: "this is a russian bot. BANNED!"
5000 shareblue trolls manipulate false anti trump post to the front page
Reddit: "i dont see anything here. Ladida. You know what? Lets make that the post of the week!"
Reddit admins: meets dnc operative in dark alley and collects checks
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
This is the equivalent of typing your resume in comic sans.
1 HearmeR00R 2018-03-06
I can't stand leftists or T_D supporters. They're two slightly different smelling assholes. If you completely align to either political party I immediately question your critical thinking skills. I mean you're playing the fucking game at that point. Last thing they'd want is unity.
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
considering Trump stole the republican party and spent the 60s 70s and up to 87 as a Democrat...Supporting Trump isn't exactly 'partisan'. He's the most centrist Candidate we've had in a while...Even was willing to sign almost a 2million dollar DACA deal while running on 'Ban the immigrants!!!!'
1 HearmeR00R 2018-03-06
Haha I give credit where it's deserved. He's all over the place but definitely doing his own thing. I don't know the last good candidate. Ron Paul was my boy for awhile. At least he's a physician and not a damn lawyer too. I dunno, I just hate seeing america so divided, even more so. Never will everyone be happy either though. Sucks for us average people right?
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
I was extremely thrilled to hear his vocal support of mental health support and the idea that some people can violate their ability to own guns because of known threats. I think everyone should be able to own a gun...and I think if you openly threaten to kill someone your ability to own that gun should go away as soon as possible. This may result in more 'spontaneous' murders as people learn not to 'broadcast' which creates another problem to deal with. I don't think it's a never ending cycle it's just that a multi-pronged solution is necessary. Improving the overal mental health of our youth should be our Nation's number one priority. What sort of future are we to lead if our children are...well...Fucked in the head?
1 HearmeR00R 2018-03-06
I agree with all of that. Well said. You're a good example of a level headed trump supporter! If someone gets caught exposing themselves they get put on the sex offender list. If someone makes threats of any kind they should be barred from owning. Guns aren't toys. I live in Texas I know all too well. I love guns lol. They were doing protests by my house walking around with AR-15s over their shoulders. Scares people but they're just pro gun guys, not nut jobs. People sometimes can't differentiate enthusiasts from fanatics. I think we have the same set of values for the most part. That makes me happy lol.
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
most people have the same sets of values...at least in America. It's why Trump is going to continue to do well and gain in popularity. He really is centrist about everything. The Democrats are just full blown commies at this point and well..Republicans are basically the same as Democrats just slightly different masters...and 'maybe goals'...but the goal always seems to be War so..
1 HearmeR00R 2018-03-06
I'm not a fan of him lol. He's so unpredictable I can't figure him out. I guess it's because he doesn't align with traditional parties. It's scary though. I don't like that he's failed to appoint ambassadors and is hurting our international image.
Honestly, I think the root of the problem is the federal reserve. We were warned about having a centralized bank and political parties. It gives them complete control and divides us. We do all have the same set of morals and values basically. I think the problem is the dems and reps are too busy calling each other names and having their thumbs up their asses. I'm a bit idealistic about a better united future but I'm also realistic lol.
I wish more people would talk to Trump supporters without the presumption they're some white supremacist idiot. Same with the dems. I enjoy talking to all sorts of people. How else can you really know someone lol. More people should try to be the bridge between opposing opinions.
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
He's taking on the Uniparty. He HAS to be unpredictable but imagine a classic liberal mindset with a dirty mouth.
And what's going on right now can only be handled by someone extremely flamboyant and thick skinned imo..literal upheaval of power in terms of elite-peasant class.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-03-06
hes also very corrupt, put goldman sachs in control of the economy and is continuing shitty foreign policy
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
And we had Citigroup with Obama. Rex Tillerson is an Oil guy which is what trade is based on and what's currently relevant to our world affairs.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-03-06
two wrongs dont make a right correct?
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
eh I mean Our money is tied to banks whether we like it or not. I'm less concerned about who's in charge, more interested in what's inside, of the federal reserve. or an audit if you will.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-03-06
so you agree trump is shit and corrupt
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
wut
1 criminalhero 2018-03-06
Spanking North Korea and having lil Kim bend the knee doesn't sound like too bad of a foreign policy to me.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-03-06
I mean expanding drone strikes, killing way more civilians and sucking saudis and israelis dicks. Also staying in syria and afganistan
1 PodestaDaPedo 2018-03-06
At least he loves America, and he isn't afraid to say it. After 8 years of a President that seemed anti-American at times, a little patriotism is a welcome change.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-03-06
leftists dont generally align to the dem party, we consider it too corporatist and want more bernie types in it. You are thinking of partisan democrats or many neoliberals
1 HearmeR00R 2018-03-06
Yeah, I think you're right. I dig the Bernie vibe. All I want is an honest person, and transparent rep.
1 criminalhero 2018-03-06
Ole $27 Bernie. He's like the anti-Robin Hood. Took money from the poor and gave it to the DNC after they fucked him good and left him a little tip as hush money.
1 OmarComingRun 2018-03-06
source?
1 LeoNemean 2018-03-06
Take your pick
1 rileyk 2018-03-06
Insane people.
1 kerouacrimbaud 2018-03-06
Which is why they won’t do that lmao
1 Shonk_Lemons 2018-03-06
We have full blown real conspiracies unfolding in front of our eyes and this is the shit this sub talks about...
1 WestCoastHippy 2018-03-06
I talk about lots of shit, but Giants, Atlantis, and Reptilians wasn't the topic of this thread. You can post a thread on a different topic.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
I have no problem with Reddit getting rid of the alt right keyboard warriors. Been a long time coming.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
I wish I was insulated from all opinions that I don't agree with!
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Lol after a quick search on your profile I learned that you defend the colonizing ass hats who took land from the real South Americans. Maybe If the Dutch stayed where they were from and didn’t pillage rape and teal for the land they have now they wouldn’t be persecuted but nah they had to fuck it up for themselves. You probably believe in white genocide too. Lmao good day.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
The Voortrekkers were escaping persecution. You need to learn some history guy.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201012/how-admit-youre-wrong%3famp I hope this can help you. God bless your soul.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
So you know the history of the Dutch Voortrekkers and you still think of them as colonizers even though they themselves were escaping British tyranny?
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Do you realize how ironic it is for you to say that the Dutch were fleeing because of persecution yet when they got to South Africa they did the exact same thing. Systematically. For years. Do you know what apartheid was? That would NEVER had happened if white people could have stayed out of South Africa. The tea is exceptionally good today. 🤫☕️🐸
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
No the original "colonists" were Dutch and French people escaping religious persecution. They filled a gap left over when the Portuguese illness whipped out the Khoisan. The British were afraid that the Dutch would get to wealthy so they took over the cape. The Dutch still wanting to be free fled into the interior where they made a deal with the zulus for land. A deal that the zulus backed out off and slaughtered the Dutch who were forced to fight back. Isn't history fun?
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
The Dutch are directly responsible for early Slavery in South Africa. History is awesome. 😘
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
The Dutch ended slavery in South Africa 30 years before the United States. Your emojis are making me realize the caliber of person I'm talking to.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
You must really suffer from cognitive dissonance if you fail to acknowledge the Dutch started slavery there and are directly responsible for it. God forbid they don’t pillage people’s land and then claim to have made it a better place. How does it even make sense that white people own 70%+ farm land in South Africa?! That’s not right and karma is coming back for those who wrongly stole land. I’m white and I’m all for it. Karma is a bitch! Lol
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
The zulus were never enslaved. In fact they did their own enslaving of neighboring tribes like the Khoisan
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Sir I’m going to stop replying to you now. You’re literally refuting well known facts. Have a good day.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
I'll take that as you throwing in the towel. Put down the emojis and pick up a text book.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Haha I just don’t like to debate with a brick wall. You’re repeating the same fallacies, you aren’t acknowledging the links that provide facts you’re refuting, and you’re bringing up irrelevant points that don’t really have anything to do with the fact that the Dutch were the first to enslave black people in South Africa and didn’t do much to help them. Haha little rascal of a man! Or woman idk what you are not that it matters. Cognitive dissonance has definitely gotten to ya. Best wishes.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
How could they be the first to enslave blacks when tribes had been enslaving each other there for centuries before the Dutch came?
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Refer to the link. It explains it and actively debunks you’re asinine statements regarding it. Reading is a very useful tool especially when debating someone that knows more about the subject than you. I’m even offering you resources to help you but you’re just digging a bigger hole for yourself. But I get the vibe that you either don’t care or don’t grasp that concept and that’s okay. Some of us are a little denser than others
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
I don’t think anyone has told you it’s okay to be wrong (which you are). So I’ll do it for ya. you are wrong.
1 dahdestroyer 2018-03-06
You can scream that I'm wrong until you are blue in the face but that's not a very solid debate tactic.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Or I could send a link that debunks your unfounded statements but that’s assuming your attention span allows you to read more than a few sentences at a time. It’s okay. Read away.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/slavery-south-africa
Have. At. It. 😘🐸☕️🐸
1 WestCoastHippy 2018-03-06
OMLOL!
1 bcrice03 2018-03-06
Can't win a debate on the relevant issue so you dig through his post history to find something you can successfully bitch about. How pathetic.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
You have been on Reddit for over a year and have 66 karma. Goodbye.
1 bcrice03 2018-03-06
Wow great argument, thanks for proving my point.
Clearly, you aren't very good at understanding irony.
1 NoThanksRandy 2018-03-06
Haha this is a conspiracy sub. You’ll learn Reddit one day or another. Until then Godspeed.
1 belltacom 2018-03-06
Rather than being just opinions, those accounts were posting and voting up actual fake news. For an example in this very sub check this very highly upvoted article and it's source.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4nixly/a_historic_lawsuit_has_been_filed_in_california/
It might hurt a lot of people like you on here because articles like promote your extremely biased agenda, but I am happy that fake facts(not opinions) will have less traction thanks to fewer bot votes.
1 digiorno 2018-03-06
Notice how the focus is only Russian bots. I'm sure there are many corporate bots and bots sponsored by other governments spamming twitter and Reddit as well. They can't ban them all or else numbers would take a hit but banning just Russia might not hurt them too much.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
There aren't too many federal investigations currently going on involving complex misinformation campaigns perpetrated by "corporate and other" bots. Do you really not understand why?
1 digiorno 2018-03-06
I understand why. It is very convenient to have a common enemy for the people to rally behind. This has always been a great way to motivate large groups. If the media constantly talked about all of the it operations then it would seem like a non issue and people would lose interest. But focus all efforts on one group, one country and you can rally people.
For the record I want justice served and Russia should be held accountable for this travesty. But a ton of foreign money influenced these electrons and the people responsible should be held accountable too. Efforts run by super pacs to manipulate voters was called astroturfing because it was so common and they pretended to have grass roots origins. Orgs like correct the record which flooding social media with propaganda are a prime example. No one should be let off the hook just because targeting Russia is the most convenient way to unite the country against a common enemy and potentially take out our idiot president at the same time.
But I get it, we can't focus on everyone or else people might not care enough to do anything. So we focus on one or two bad guys and maybe some progress will get made.
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
Money in politics is clearly a huge problem and has shown to quickly subvert the will of the poeple so we need to address that obviously but Russia attacking our democracy and infiltrating multiple branches of our government using psy ops is a more urgent existential threat. Dark money played a big part in that and also needs to be addressed.
1 WestCoastHippy 2018-03-06
Very interesting observation I had not considered. The language does focus on Russian bots.
1 the-red-wheelbarrow 2018-03-06
To be fair the other bots clearly weren't as effective
1 Blergblarg2 2018-03-06
Not if they don't ban their own bots.
They didn't say they'll ban them all, just the one that are problematic.
Afaik, catpcha has not been beaten.
Add that, and bots would die at their next check.
1 Rasterblath 2018-03-06
Not only that but that leaves no explanation for /r/politics or the hundreds of other subs that were brigaded during the election.
Smart people work for reddit and can identify how much content is AstroTurf. That’s the real reason TD is safe.
1 ioillusion 2018-03-06
It's known, but it doesn't always get reported to upper management. You have lower level executives counting on numbers, so the reports to the top are usually a bit filtered. I once had to move numbers from a traffic spike due to DOS attacks into general traffic so management could report a redesign as a huge success. While it was live, the site never matched those numbers again.
1 oneamungus 2018-03-06
I bet you it won't.
1 BankaiSam 2018-03-06
It's not only Reddit though, just about anyone that doesn't conform to the "popular" opinion on anything is drummed up as surely being connected to Russia by all mass media.
1 littlejohnnyjewel 2018-03-06
Party's over...you all might as well go back to 4chan
1 eekamimi 2018-03-06
[Removed]
1 yatea34 2018-03-06
Ironic that history will note that Russian Bots turned out to be the last defenders of the Bill of Right's Second Amendment.
:(
1 afooltobesure 2018-03-06
No they aren't, because anyone will be free to complain if they aren't in fact a Russian troll account.
1 Anderson82 2018-03-06
Is there a way to make sure this is indeed what they do? Because people, we need to get RID of the bots, especially foreign, but stateside too. But I also agree this needs to be done using an open process wherin some form of "Voigt-Kampf" test is issued and transcribed(in this case meaning something as simple as 'Did this account post something aggressive at the exact second they were allowed to post, reaching max capacity like clockwork?' All these corporate leaders are all about Open A.I. -- We should start an "OpenAnalog" showing human mediated solutions to dealing with digital weaponization in our social networks and what not... Maybe something like this already exists?
1 DeathMentaL 2018-03-06
Think about the John moraga ama yesterday front page of reddit and under it is anti trump shit, that's how they get you.
1 msvard 2018-03-06
No thats just T_D users being paranoid they might not be able to unknowingly repost from russian trolls. They make the best content ya know!
1 rising_gmni 2018-03-06
904 bots up voted
1 sk3999999 2018-03-06
Its the first time in a long time that someone they didn't want to be president in the US won. He is exposing a lot of their corruption intentionally and unintentionally. They can't let that happen again.
1 luvshaq_ 2018-03-06
I'm confused... is the position of r/conspiracy that Reddit is not full of shills?
1 oldyellowtruck 2018-03-06
I’d say the shills are the idiot leftists who want to blame their loss on Russia and accuse all with whom they disagree of being “Russian shills”. Remember, the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked.
1 professorbooty25 2018-03-06
His name was Seth Rich.
1 alhamjaradeeksa 2018-03-06
LOL!
1 luvshaq_ 2018-03-06
I love how when there is an actual massive conspiracy unfolding in the public eye involving government corruption and collusion, the people of this subreddit dismiss it. Y'all are like conspiracy hipsters and russiagate is too mainstream for you
1 a_trashcan 2018-03-06
It's really a purist thing I think. It didn't originate here so it's bullshit. People here don't trust anything but themselves so when there's a conclusion they didn't come to it must be propaganda.
1 medic30420 2018-03-06
Thank you for correcting the record.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
I must dhare this! Blue!
1 TheTruthHasNoBias 2018-03-06
No there are shills but they arent Russian.
1 MaulPanafort 2018-03-06
r/conspiracy is one of the most heavily trolled and botted communities on Reddit.
1 BlockChainPolitics 2018-03-06
Why not create a steemit.com account? Decentralized. Can't be removed, only down voted
1 defhermit 2018-03-06
or maybe there are actually Russian troll accounts that are here to cause chaos, and its a good thing to get rid of them?
1 Madrenoche 2018-03-06
Elimination of American troll accounts has been in effect for some time now.... Just head over to Utoob or goo gul.
1 Yegie 2018-03-06
Reddit can and always could ban anyone for any reason. This is purely a PR move.
1 hinkleypickles 2018-03-06
Pfft that's exactly what a Russian troll would say!
1 Sumner67 2018-03-06
they are using this to try to target one specific subreddit that they don't like, T_D.
That's it, they don't mention that russians were supposedly in /politics working FOR Bernie's campaign against Hillary or that russians were behind many anti-Trump protests and posts in there as well.
No, this is purely a move by one side to silence those they don't agree with.
1 professorbooty25 2018-03-06
If they talk about Russians in /politics, they'll have to answer for letting CTR and Share Blue run wild all over that sub. Because spez did say "propaganda both foreign and otherwise". So that's not going to happen.
1 Sumner67 2018-03-06
CTR and Share Blue run that sub. rofl
1 Redchevron 2018-03-06
The Liberal mainstream media is absolutely insane at this point.
Do they really not think that this rehashing of McCarthyism/Cold War propaganda is actually going to work?
1 unitsofwhat 2018-03-06
I’m still so confused.
Isnt what Russia’s doing just a more involved form of dropping pamphlets?
Are we really saying we’re going to start banning people because they are trying to spread the good word of Russia?
What the fuck happened to open ideas across the Internet?
And letting people chose which ideas to believe in?
Oh thats right, they’re no socially progressive left wing ideas.
(Coming from a social progressive myself, this is bullshit)
1 freethinker78 2018-03-06
Banning speech is unfortunately a principle of the hard left wing of progressives.
1 Simplicity3245 2018-03-06
Why do I keep seeing this? Stop equating pro-establishment neoliberals as the "hard progressive left" Conservatives have more in common with them than progressives. Stop demonizing potential allies against the system.
1 Satyrsun 2018-03-06
You sweet summer child. The method of implementation is much more subtle, pervasive and fucked up than you can imagine.
For the most part, the Russians stick to memes and news reposts. But when you're a native English speaker, there's a whole world of pms and social interaction to exploit. You can push buttons, stalk a particular user for weeks down voting everything they say, have several other...colleagues... join in to express incredulity that someone could possibly hold such ridiculous ideas...you can isolate them and emotionally devour them in the background using the psychology of the upvote, appeal to numbers.
By making every attempt to engage in ideas that before may have started heated discussion and a flood of random 2 cents now an imminent round of insults, incredulity, repetition of the same basic definitions that you've repeated countless times the last time you posted, you make your fellow man into an object of anxiety and fear.
The digging is relentless, and always cast with the implication that you brought it on Yourself. Look,you've got 5 down votes and 3 people at once sitting on 15 upvotes calling you ridiculous and accusing you of harming whatever your given movement is by holding such ideas - clearly the problem must be you not them right? But the response just seemed so rude and personal... but clearly the community thought it was reasonable to react in such a way, and why should I expect some rando off the Internet to engage with me as if we're in real life? Its the internet, gotta let it slide off your back, sticks and stones.
That works the first few weeks. But your monkey brain can't stop analyzing those numbers of aproval and disproval, the character of the responses and the consistency....every time. The repetitive conditioning that when you post, your ideas invite disdain and the community is united in their incredulity becomes the expectation.
Extend it naturally.
Offline That must mean when i speak, everyone Is mocking me in their heads.
But you dont engage with people like that! You try not to be a dick, you dont just needlessly ridicule others or present their crazy unpopular idea as a representation of their general worth - but that must just be how society has evolved, and you were one of the weak who was so thick you never saw them laughing behind your back.
You question where humanity has gone, and if there is any hope at all, any point in trying to make a better world if this is how we will treat each other.
So you unsubscribe from the democratic socialists mailing list. You never go to their meetings, or help them organize. You probably skip voting - what's the point?
Or maybe you go the darker route, and vow to adapt... It's every man for himself, now. If society wants to treat you like a marginalized piece of shit, you'll join the other marginal pieces of shit then. You won't be weak again, because now you've learned the truth of what human nature is, and it requires rethinking your entire approach to how society should and ought to functuon.
Dark times upon us friends.
1 Satyrsun 2018-03-06
That’s cute, someone deleted my post and replaced it with this garbage.
1 krz9000 2018-03-06
the jews are worried...
1 thenoblitt 2018-03-06
Implying they are actually going to get off their lazy asses and do something.
1 jmjosh9 2018-03-06
Question: how come to the top comments on /politics don’t show the number of votes by them?
1 PrussianHacker 2018-03-06
What are the unpopular opinions?
1 SuperCharlesXYZ 2018-03-06
Will mods ban accounts on their subreddits? yes. Reddit shadowbanning accounts simply because they're disagreeing, is how forums die. Reddit isn't stupid
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-03-06
Zionist troll accounts = A-Okay
1 0Kpanhandler 2018-03-06
Fuck you Russian troll
1 JeweliusCaesar 2018-03-06
It’s really genius when you think about it. These people are diabolical.
1 Neubeowulf 2018-03-06
Does this apply accounts for Americans who have a dissenting opinion about our system?
Are we all supposed to get behind the winning team, voice Pro American sentiments? All we are doing is confirming to the other 7 billion people stuck on this planet with us is that the United States is the problem. How to Lose Friends and Influence people to hate you.....
1 Market_Brand 2018-03-06
Isn't that what a Russian spy would say?
1 Stewbender 2018-03-06
This is dumb. The one credibly real, well organized, large scale conspiracy to come out since the Iran Contra and r/conspiracy is dedicated to calling it false.
1 professorbooty25 2018-03-06
Arming Isis isn't a large scale organized conspiracy? You're a silly person.
1 Stewbender 2018-03-06
Not really a conspiracy if you do it openly. Dump a bunch of weapons and bombs on a spot, shit it's going to kick off. That was the strategy the whole time and was pretty obvious.
1 professorbooty25 2018-03-06
So you say, but the average person in the street is going to believe the US was fighting isis, not arming and training them.
1 Stewbender 2018-03-06
To be fair, they did most of the arming and training before they were called Isis, but on a practical level it doesn't matter.
Also, it matters very little at this point how woke the sheeple are, because the psy ops have a choke hold on social media and people are addicted.
1 iversonsinned 2018-03-06
This explains a lot.
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
Remember when Hillary got chucked into a van like a side of beef And didn’t campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan?
Remember when 70-year-old Donald Trump outplayed career politicians in the Republican primaries and then went on to win the election even though the entire media was against him yeah that must’ve been because of the Russians.
Remember when you kept on posting remember when stuff but wouldn’t just admit the fact that your candidate was terrible and that’s why she lost?
1 skyderper13 2018-03-06
how do you know that
1 romerom 2018-03-06
here's a thought - isn't reddit like.... a GLOBAL website, supporting more than the United States - wtf is wrong with Russian's using reddit?!
1 Vanguarde2020 2018-03-06
I am also a Russian bot it seems. News to me!
1 rodental 2018-03-06
Well, be careful your VPN doesn't have an exit node in Russia.
1 CheeseSteakWithOnion 2018-03-06
Its incontrovertible fact that Russia is making heavy use of bots to push Russian government agenda.
So yeah, they should be banned. They should have been banned as soon as they became aware of the problem.
1 namelesssoulless 2018-03-06
I am so fucking done with YouTube and reddit. Time to take it underground boys. Let’s get decentralized
1 _Endif 2018-03-06
No they aren't.
1 ezwip 2018-03-06
Liberal bots are worse than Russian bots.
1 cavalierau 2018-03-06
Reddit.... mmmmm Reddit. BAP BOOP BEEP. You're dead.
1 The_Raby 2018-03-06
That's not even a conspiracy, that's last week
1 07779311 2018-03-06
Good call and right on the money.
But you know, maybe this is best. If they ban everyone from the right, they'll go to voat or /pol/ and we'll all be happier.
1 something_new 2018-03-06
Will they do the same to Hillary's "techno experts"?
1 yewotmeight 2018-03-06
I troll all the time but I'm not Russian. Why do they hate Russians so bad? Other than the whole Bolshevik thing.
1 sigurross 2018-03-06
I don't think this stops at reddit. This "russia" "sowing discord" thing is leading to mass censorship! Just wait. Any voice of reasonable dissent will be labeled a Russian troll and blocked.
1 steven-mctowelie 2018-03-06
1st the trolls, then the women and children
1 Brodusgus 2018-03-06
They are animals, and I slaughtered them like animals.
1 Smiley_Iris 2018-03-06
I fucking luv russia, dawg
1 EuropeanAmerican420 2018-03-06
Mods already do that for them. Unneeded.
1 dubdubdubdot 2018-03-06
Wait what? So all the astro turfing US and Israeli accounts are fine, hilarious.
1 CrookedHilldog 2018-03-06
I never understand banning accounts. Can't you just create a new account? It takes like 7 seconds. I have about 30 accounts. Why do people act like their dog died when their account gets deleted I honestly don't get it
1 Russian_Bot_737 2018-03-06
I guess I don't have anything to worry about
1 Ralphus999 2018-03-06
No shit
1 AmishAtomicPhysicist 2018-03-06
Youtube already does it.
1 CptFizz 2018-03-06
Time to move away from this site.
1 dcwalnutsauce 2018-03-06
Why are Americans so racist against people of Russian ethnicity? I thought this country accepted all cultures? Is it because most Russian people have a pale white complexion?
This is disturbing, on so many levels.
1 AlbanyHockey 2018-03-06
Lol Russians are not a race. What a dumb fucking statement.
1 dcwalnutsauce 2018-03-06
found the racist.
1 CovfefeAddictedMonky 2018-03-06
According to hysterical liberals, everyone who disagrees with them is a Russian election meddling troll. These delusional retards are fighting an imaginary war with Russia and losing. How stupid do you have to be to lose an imaginary war?
1 Romek_himself 2018-03-06
kinda useless on a website where you can make a new account in a heartbeat and all you need for is an fake trash email ...
1 pby1000 2018-03-06
The NWO globalists are already here. We need to go after them, too.
1 iemploreyou 2018-03-06
They definitely didn't try to murder someone on foreign soil yesterday.
1 cjbrigol 2018-03-06
But now it's democrats using it rather than Republicans. Funny.
1 Eat_shat_nd_die 2018-03-06
Russia is a myth.
1 diehardgiraffe 2018-03-06
They don't have to be buddy buddy, they both profit from the mass surveillance so it makes sense both would seek it in whichever way possible.
I'm sure Russia has internet trolls, as I'm sure every other country meddles in every other country's business. Welcome to geopolitics. Russia's influence seems to be incredibly overblown. I'd be incredibly surprised if China didn't have a similar influence, as well as many of our allies. Everyone has a stake in the U.S election, they'd be stupid to not try and interfere. We're just using Russia as the current boogeyman as the middle east has been largely pacified and we always need an enemy.
1 Sleepy_Spider 2018-03-06
Meh, get yourself a masstagger with RES and you would be surprised the kind of accounts that get flagged. Mostly false positives, but there are fuckloads of shill accounts that look insanely sketchy.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
Whataboutism?
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
I get the blanket of everyone wants to interfere with the US. However, as I said earlier, Russia is the country that is currently dominating that space. And Russia is the one country we still have a wealth of trade deals on hold with because of sanctions and our foreign policy.
1 denreyc 2018-03-06
What's so interesting about it? Did the bots target his comment? If so, why didn't he "alter the spelling of some words to prevent" it?
Is every downvoted comment automatically true because it's downvoted, or does that only apply to downvoted comments you agree with?
1 Gangiskhan 2018-03-06
Clearly all of Flynn's sketchy doings didn't stretch before Trump picked him. Not like Obama's admin gave advice to not hire the guy as he as previously fired.
Page plead guilty to a count of conspiracy against the US. I believe there were some others named but that is the one that comes to mind. Same dude who has FISA surveillance renewed on him for what like 2 years before he was hired by Trump. Manafort got caught up in paperwork initially but I think he has other charges on him now.
In this case I'm fairly certain said manager knew about his employee's skeletons but still hired him anyways.
Pretty sure that whole conspiracy against the US is the Russian meddling charge you keep asking for. And as I said earlier, gotta wait til the end of the investigation before claiming no charges exist.
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-03-06
I expected full-on 4chan shenanigans, quite frankly.
1 anonymoushero1 2018-03-06
lol you guys are so fucking retarded. None of those companies have done anything extreme or violated anyone's free speech. The reason they generally have a left-leaning bias is because their audience is generally left-leaning, and they have advertisers that want to target that audience. Your dumbass views aren't being censored they're just unpopular outside your echo chambers.
1 tlydon007 2018-03-06
No one knows exactly how far it goes...
All we know is that it goes so far that Trump is still hiding his tax returns, his appointees have all committed crimes by hiding the meeting, and Mueller has 5 indictments and counting.
You can't name any other investigation with that much incriminating evidence in all of US history.
1 Hisin 2018-03-06
If reddit was censoring on behalf of the government they would be censoring liberal subs wouldn't they? Republicans control basically the entire government. They are the establishment now.
1 Rightfull9 2018-03-06
Well said.
1 cdwill 2018-03-06
Yup, there’s quite a lot of interest in controlling what is said here. In my experience, that can only be the result of fear.
Not all downvotes are bot targeting, of course — but there are those here that want you to think that it is.
1 justforthissubred 2018-03-06
Spicer never "confirmed" that they were:
According to what you just posted, Spicer confirmed that they were investigating Rich's death.
There's a huge difference between conspiring to push a story they knew was false, and investigating a murder.
Stop lying.
1 TheBloodening 2018-03-06
Oh yea, give me an actual historical example that hasn't almost immediately been found out or had their power structures eroded? Hashassins? Jacobins? Every aristocracy ever? How about the Hapsbergs they actually did manage to consoladate and then bred themselves out of existence? Don't confuse intelligence communities for secret power structures, read more history.
1 Wormwood03 2018-03-06
Then make a post about it. The only reason you bring it up in this conversation is to distract from the current topic. Its called deflection
1 Shh-NotUntilMyCoffee 2018-03-06
The concept is inline with human nature, the "in-practice" it not being throughly shared and common knowledge is impossible.
The lack of available evidence and documentation in a world with infinite examples of such evidence getting out, would suggest the impracticality of your hypothesis.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
Im simply stating a fact
One: you wont accept any source i provide
Two: if u havent already heard these major stories youre a victim of democrat propoganda
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-06
That guy clearly just hates the shills here, as do most genuine users.
1 qiv 2018-03-06
The strategic enemy of my democratically elected officials; ergo enemies of me, a citizen. The US isnt a kingdom buddy we handled that issue a few hundred years ago.
1 hrhehebdvv 2018-03-06
One: why should i provide sources but not him?
Why be skeptical of my claims but accept his claims wholesale?
Is it just because you agree with his claims? You don't like the things fox says so you're ready to believe that they're fake?
1 kindcannabal 2018-03-06
How do you feel about Trump's sexual harassment, assault, paying prostitutes for sex, trying to fuck his friends wife? If you're sickened by Biden being a hugger but not an actual sexual preditor, the that sick feeling is you your mental disease.
1 Prince_pepe 2018-03-06
I will miss you xxx
1 xxJrotheRxx 2018-03-06
So then really your argument is that web forums are either more important than the government, or should be run by a government body? I disagree on both these viewpoints for a few reasons, more importantly, Reddit is privately owned and matter-of-factly doesn't owe you or your viewpoints shit. I'm not happy with that being reddits future, and you can do whatever you want with that information, but at the end of the day thats how it is.
1 scottyfreemon 2018-03-06
I’m dead ass serious when I say this. My co worker has been stressed and dealing with anxiety for a while, her doctor told her not to watch CNN anymore (her normal news channel) because they literally only talk about bad shit. She said he referred to it as “doom and gloom”. She stopped watching and her anxiety has died down. Take that how y’all will but it’s an honest to god story.
1 cdwill 2018-03-06
He already knew the answer. He just wanted to push a viewpoint.
1 grayarea2_7 2018-03-06
most people have the same sets of values...at least in America. It's why Trump is going to continue to do well and gain in popularity. He really is centrist about everything. The Democrats are just full blown commies at this point and well..Republicans are basically the same as Democrats just slightly different masters...and 'maybe goals'...but the goal always seems to be War so..
1 skyderper13 2018-03-06
gilded too