Is foreign disinformation a threat?

[GGGG]

There there are the gatekeepers.  We put all this power into the hands of Google, Facebook, Twitter. Why?  They have enormous control.

Anyone watch the Senate hearings last week with these Silicon Valley giants?  Case in point, Twitter admitted (pages 6 and 7) to suppressing hashtags around the DNC leaks.   https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-d433-4055-9f3d-c94f97eeb1c0/testimony-of-sean-edgett-acting-general-counsel-twitter.pdf

Those leaks turned out to be true, 48% were suppressed for TRUTHFUL information.  Did we know if it was truthful at the time?  Good question. Will they act in the same way if it was a different ideology in play? Afterall, this is the same social media site that a disgruntled employee took down the twitter account of the most powerful person in the world the other day.

Social media is the vehicle in which information (truthful and non-truthful) spreads in a matter of seconds around the world. Who are the gatekeepers? What do they believe? What do they suppress or accentuate? 

Scary stuff

Those tweets were not filtered out because they weren't true.  They were filtered out because they were generated by automated spam bots.  "These steps were part of our general efforts at the time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas."

I mean, the testimony said that there were 426,000 tweets with the #podestaemails hashtag.  They filtered out a quarter of them because Twitter believed them to be spam.  That still left 300,000 tweets.

So you really think it's "scary" that Twitter filters out repetitive, auto-generated tweets that are just spam?

[GGGG]

Stories are spiked all the time, that is not a strawman.  You can watch any number of hidden camera footage of media types admitting to doing so, books on the subject, or just pay attention. Both sides do it.  Are you saying Fox News digs hard into conservative politics to expose them?  How about MSNBC on liberals politics? 

I'm saying that you are the king of changing the subject to fit your narrative.

[B. McBannerson]

100% agree that domestic media has bias in their stories/reporting.

However, if you're equating that with a foreign power trying to manipulate our populace and shape our government/policy, I think that's nuts. There is no equivalency there.

We influence other nations all the time.  Voice of America.  Dropping leaflets.  Planting stories with specific journalists.   

About 25% of our populace thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that speaks volumes about our populace with no help from any foreign gov't. 

When our own internal information gathers and disseminators are so polarized there is an absolute equivalency, and a strong one at that.  Why did it take the NY Times two days this week to read about an absolute bombshell that the head of the DNC was considering putting Biden on the ticket because she believed her party rigged the election?  Why did it only take other outlets less than an hour?  CBS, NBC, ABC also didn't cover in their evening news on Thursday despite story coming out 14 hours earlier.  Remember a certain POTUS and an intern, that story was spiked and admitted to be spiked. It took an internet guy named Matt to publish it. 

How many Harvey Weinstein stories were spiked in the last 10 years?  We already know of three, including two by the NY Times.  Why are people naive on this?  Yet I'm the king of Strawmen for stating the obvious?

I can give examples on the other side as well.  Spiking stories is just as problematic and producing false stories and it is WILLFULLY done to control the message or limit damage.  That's how polarized we are.  We have a domestic problem every bit as much as a foreign one.

[Tugg Speedman]

Every time you post, I become more convinced you are in a Moscow basement.     You live for and thrive on disinformation.

  Why ... are you that uncomfortable with anyone that does not think the way you do

[Tugg Speedman]

100% agree that domestic media has bias in their stories/reporting.

However, if you're equating that with a foreign power trying to manipulate our populace and shape our government/policy, I think that's nuts. There is no equivalency there.

Foreign influence is a problem ... always has been and always will be.

But the disinformation spread by Infowars, Vox, Moveon and the rest (on the left and right) is the real problem.

[B. McBannerson]

Those tweets were not filtered out because they weren't true.  They were filtered out because they were generated by automated spam bots.  "These steps were part of our general efforts at the time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas."

I mean, the testimony said that there were 426,000 tweets with the #podestaemails hashtag.  They filtered out a quarter of them because Twitter believed them to be spam.  That still left 300,000 tweets.

So you really think it's "scary" that Twitter filters out repetitive, auto-generated tweets that are just spam?

Twitter is not SURE they are spam, they guessed that to be the case and ADMITTED that real people were also purged.  They don't have the ability to tell with pure accuracy.  More importantly, the power they have in deciding what is purged and not, which accounts are suspended or not, what is trending or not? 

There were several analysis's done during the election that showed suppression.  That is scary.

[jesmu84]

We influence other nations all the time.  Voice of America.  Dropping leaflets.  Planting stories with specific journalists.   

About 25% of our populace thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that speaks volumes about our populace with no help from any foreign gov't. 

When our own internal information gathers and disseminators are so polarized there is an absolute equivalency, and a strong one at that.  Why did it take the NY Times two days this week to read about an absolute bombshell that the head of the DNC was considering putting Biden on the ticket because she believed her party rigged the election?  Why did it only take other outlets less than an hour?  CBS, NBC, ABC also didn't cover in their evening news on Thursday despite story coming out 14 hours earlier.  Remember a certain POTUS and an intern, that story was spiked and admitted to be spiked. It took an internet guy named Matt to publish it. 

How many Harvey Weinstein stories were spiked in the last 10 years?  We already know of three, including two by the NY Times.  Why are people naive on this?  Yet I'm the king of Strawmen for stating the obvious?

I can give examples on the other side as well.  Spiking stories is just as problematic and producing false stories and it is WILLFULLY done to control the message or limit damage.  That's how polarized we are.  We have a domestic problem every bit as much as a foreign one.

I just want to clarify. You believe a foreign power influencing our democracy is the same as domestic financially influenced, and therefore biased, media reporting?

If that is actually your position here, we will never agree. I find an outside power trying to alter the very fabric of the US as a far greater problem. And it's okay that we don't agree. Thanks for providing your perspective

[GGGG]

Twitter is not SURE they are spam, they guessed that to be the case and ADMITTED that real people were also purged.  They don't have the ability to tell with pure accuracy.  More importantly, the power they have in deciding what is purged and not, which accounts are suspended or not, what is trending or not? 

There were several analysis's done during the election that showed suppression.  That is scary.

Dude, I provided the quotes and data from the portion that *you* provided.  I also pointed out that your assertion that "those leaks turned out to be true" wasn't relevant because that point wasn't in contention.

And of course no filter is perfect.  No spam filter is.  There is nothing "scary" about it.

[MUBurrow]

The last thing I want to do is come off as agreeing with Scoop's large adult prodigal son. And I don't want to touch the comparison to US News outlets because that's just obsfucation.

But I do feel like, at least at this early stage, we're acting from outrage and hyperbole as much as from measured reason. Yes, the notion of foreign states taking steps to f*ck with us as we try to compare candidates and vote is gross. But at the same time, do we have (i) a framework of laws in place that prevent that specific behavior, and (ii) a practical mechanism to enforce those laws, even domestically? Between the trash heap of attempts at campaign finance reform, the impact of Citizens United, etc., our framework for how elections operate is a damn mess.

If US citizens had done the same things as the Russians clearly did, what US contracts/laws would they have violated? Just private terms of service with the social media providers? Libel laws? Are there also applicable federal campaign laws? (I honestly don't know enough about this). If its federal campaign law, are those laws written with the internet in mind, and do we have an enforcement agency that can enforce them? I feel like we need to get our crap a little straighter before forming a useful opinion on how to deal with the Russians, even if their activity was clearly deviant.

[MU82]

The last thing I want to do is come off as agreeing with Scoop's large adult prodigal son. And I don't want to touch the comparison to US News outlets because that's just obsfucation.

But I do feel like, at least at this early stage, we're acting from outrage and hyperbole as much as from measured reason. Yes, the notion of foreign states taking steps to f*ck with us as we try to compare candidates and vote is gross. But at the same time, do we have (i) a framework of laws in place that prevent that specific behavior, and (ii) a practical mechanism to enforce those laws, even domestically? Between the trash heap of attempts at campaign finance reform, the impact of Citizens United, etc., our framework for how elections operate is a damn mess.

If US citizens had done the same things as the Russians clearly did, what US contracts/laws would they have violated? Just private terms of service with the social media providers? Libel laws? Are there also applicable federal campaign laws? (I honestly don't know enough about this). If its federal campaign law, are those laws written with the internet in mind, and do we have an enforcement agency that can enforce them? I feel like we need to get our crap a little straighter before forming a useful opinion on how to deal with the Russians, even if their activity was clearly deviant.

Reasonable questions.

And it's OK if you agree with him on something. He won't be able to respond, anyway, because he's been banned, you know.

He even taunts the mods with his new screen name.

[Mutaman]

And it is very funny/pathetic that Chicas continues to pretend.

He's obviously as emotionally disturbed as you always said he was. Mental illness is no joke but its nice to be right about things.

[forgetful]

Foreign influence is a problem ... always has been and always will be.

But the disinformation spread by Infowars, Vox, Moveon and the rest (on the left and right) is the real problem.

It is foreign influence that is fueling much of what you define as "the real problem".  Foreign state actors are the ones creating and propagating fake news stories that these entities pick up. 

But, with that said, I agree with you on these sites being serious problems.  That includes things like "natural news" and the ilk that propagate fake health care ideas and the homeopathic/antivax mentalities. 

A good example of the problem is this:

https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/

That fake news was put out so fast after such a tragedy is horrifying, and if you don't think that some of these stories were not created by foreign-state actors, you are not aware of what is going on. 

[Tugg Speedman]

It is foreign influence that is fueling much of what you define as "the real problem".  Foreign state actors are the ones creating and propagating fake news stories that these entities pick up. 

But, with that said, I agree with you on these sites being serious problems.  That includes things like "natural news" and the ilk that propagate fake health care ideas and the homeopathic/antivax mentalities. 

A good example of the problem is this:

https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/

That fake news was put out so fast after such a tragedy is horrifying, and if you don't think that some of these stories were not created by foreign-state actors, you are not aware of what is going on.

I agree that foreign actors are probably behind some of this.  But isn't your post the answer ... sites like Snopes and others that country-balance it?

Otherwise, how do you regulate this without tearing up the Bill of Rights in the process?

[forgetful]

I agree that foreign actors are probably behind some of this.  But isn't your post the answer ... sites like Snopes and others that country-balance it?

Otherwise, how do you regulate this without tearing up the Bill of Rights in the process?

The bolded is the question, and I don't have a good answer.

Places like Snopes should be an answer, but people on the right now believe that Snopes is a leftwing conspiracy, and are lying about things like the one I posted above.  Why??  Because their random Facebook feeds say otherwise...largely operated by bots and foreign-state actors.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Anyone that doesn't think that the Russians, and before them the Soviets, have been engaged in disinformation campaigns against the US and the West for the last century is blind to the history of the 20th century and the Cold War.

By the same notion, the US and the CIA have been doing the same thing for almost as long.

[B. McBannerson]

I just want to clarify. You believe a foreign power influencing our democracy is the same as domestic financially influenced, and therefore biased, media reporting?

If that is actually your position here, we will never agree. I find an outside power trying to alter the very fabric of the US as a far greater problem. And it's okay that we don't agree. Thanks for providing your perspective

I think foreign influence is BAU and been going on for thousands of years.  Pick your time period, pick your empire.  We do it, they do it.  Do you think it is a great problem when we do it?

My concerns with the media is spiking stories and the power given to enhance, embellish, spike.   Let's cut to the chase.  You are greatly concerned about Facebook ads or other disinformation that can sway an election.  Then why wouldn't you be also concerned about our own domestic media picking and choosing what to report, which can also sway an election?  How many undercover videos will it take of people at CNN, the Times, Fox and elsewhere to convince folks that a free press isn't a free press, but bought and paid for to deliver news to preidentified targeted users.  People live in a bubble and confirmation bias is big business.

[MU82]

Anyone that doesn't think that the Russians, and before them the Soviets, have been engaged in disinformation campaigns against the US and the West for the last century is blind to the history of the 20th century and the Cold War.

By the same notion, the US and the CIA have been doing the same thing for almost as long.

There are lots of things that have gone on "for so long" but I'm not sure that's a good rationalization because they can now be "weaponized" by the accessibility of social media.

Disclosure: I don't claim to have a solution.

[dgies9156]

Folks, may I remind you there is something called the First Amendment to the Constitution. NO LAW means NO LAW. The Supreme Court has interpreted the limits of the government's action to restrain media to be clear and present danger in national security and pornography. Even the power to control porn has been severely limited.

As bad as the internet can be and as misinformed as we can sometimes be, I'd want it no other way.

Internet ignorance is the porn of the new millennium. We all want it stopped but we can't agree on what we should be stopping. Years ago when I was a Journalism student, there was debate over the government's ability to restrain the publication and distribution of what was thought to be porn. Effectively, the courts took the position that no matter how raunchy something was, there is a right to disseminate under the first amendment.

We can see even now what could happen if we forget we have a first amendment. Almost any college campus in the United States today is effectively self-censoring controversial or contrary speakers and ideas. If this power is granted to the government in the interest of curbing foreign internet influence, how long will it be before groups of snowflakes curb legitimate political discourse?

As much as I deplore true hateful speech, an expanding notion of hate speech and a national full of snowflakes in government controlling the media is "just a bit" outlandish.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Folks, may I remind you there is something called the First Amendment to the Constitution. NO LAW means NO LAW. The Supreme Court has interpreted the limits of the government's action to restrain media to be clear and present danger in national security and pornography. Even the power to control porn has been severely limited.

As bad as the internet can be and as misinformed as we can sometimes be, I'd want it no other way.

Internet ignorance is the porn of the new millennium. We all want it stopped but we can't agree on what we should be stopping. Years ago when I was a Journalism student, there was debate over the government's ability to restrain the publication and distribution of what was thought to be porn. Effectively, the courts took the position that no matter how raunchy something was, there is a right to disseminate under the first amendment.

We can see even now what could happen if we forget we have a first amendment. Almost any college campus in the United States today is effectively self-censoring controversial or contrary speakers and ideas. If this power is granted to the government in the interest of curbing foreign internet influence, how long will it be before groups of snowflakes curb legitimate political discourse?

As much as I deplore true hateful speech, an expanding notion of hate speech and a national full of snowflakes in government controlling the media is "just a bit" outlandish.

I'm not wading into the rest of your post because there's a lot of misinformation and myths. But on the bolded, as much as people publicly say they want to get rid of porn, very few actually mean it. Its a multi-trillion dollar business with thousands of human right violations and unfair labor practices that directly funds modern day slavery, human trafficking, and child sex rings. Despite all this, a vast majority of American men and a significant population of American women watch it regularly, but in secret.

[Benny B]

I'm not wading into the rest of your post because there's a lot of misinformation and myths. But on the bolded, as much as people publicly say they want to get rid of porn, very few actually mean it. Its a multi-trillion dollar business with thousands of human right violations and unfair labor practices that directly funds modern day slavery, human trafficking, and child sex rings. Despite all this, a vast majority of American men and a significant population of American women watch it regularly, but in secret.

So you avoid the misinformation and myths you don't agree with but then go on to create a few of your own?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So you avoid the misinformation and myths you don't agree with but then go on to create a few of your own?

What did I say that is misinformation or a myth?

[B. McBannerson]

Folks, may I remind you there is something called the First Amendment to the Constitution. NO LAW means NO LAW. The Supreme Court has interpreted the limits of the government's action to restrain media to be clear and present danger in national security and pornography. Even the power to control porn has been severely limited.

As bad as the internet can be and as misinformed as we can sometimes be, I'd want it no other way.

Internet ignorance is the porn of the new millennium. We all want it stopped but we can't agree on what we should be stopping. Years ago when I was a Journalism student, there was debate over the government's ability to restrain the publication and distribution of what was thought to be porn. Effectively, the courts took the position that no matter how raunchy something was, there is a right to disseminate under the first amendment.

We can see even now what could happen if we forget we have a first amendment. Almost any college campus in the United States today is effectively self-censoring controversial or contrary speakers and ideas. If this power is granted to the government in the interest of curbing foreign internet influence, how long will it be before groups of snowflakes curb legitimate political discourse?

As much as I deplore true hateful speech, an expanding notion of hate speech and a national full of snowflakes in government controlling the media is "just a bit" outlandish.

+ TAX

Is the gov't going to outlaw user created memes on social media? Good luck with that.  Or will those that cry about them just call the other side Bots or Russian Trolls as they do today? 

The stifling of speech, labeling everything hateful or racist to quell it only because they don't agree with it.   It is becoming Orwellian and that's just fine for some.  Sadly.   

[brewcity77]

What did I say that is misinformation or a myth?

+1

Nothing even controversial in that post.

[mu-rara]

+ TAX

Is the gov't going to outlaw user created memes on social media? Good luck with that.  Or will those that cry about them just call the other side Bots or Russian Trolls as they do today? 

The stifling of speech, labeling everything hateful or racist to quell it only because they don't agree with it.   It is becoming Orwellian and that's just fine for some.  Sadly.

Article in today's WSJ backing you up on this Banny.

[real chili 83]

In before Wocky goes"WTF