Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That wasn't third grade. This is third grade. Stop crying. The election is over.I did answer it. Like three times. You didn't understand the answer. Just like you don't understand that your signature is calling all republicans racist. Or that you don't understand the irony of you creating a thread on propaganda when you yourself are engaging in propaganda.That's what your signature implies. Yes.Yeah..because I'm talking to ALL the Republicans on here that complain about people calling Republican posters racist. Jesus dude? Are you one of those idiot savants that can't understand basic things but you can count 2,000 toothpicks in 3 seconds?
No, no it doesn't. You can't even answer a simple fucking question in another thread. You can't understand what a sentence says. Stick to graphs kid because that's the only thing you can read.
Your answer was one of the dumbest 3rd grade come back answers I've read on this forum, "Do they have to ask you if they can do it?"
How does the saying go? Oh yeah... it takes one to know one?That wasn't third grade. This is third grade. Stop crying. The election is over.I did answer it. Like three times. You didn't understand the answer. Just like you don't understand that your signature is calling all republicans racist. Or that you don't understand the irony of you creating a thread on propaganda when you yourself are engaging in propaganda.That's what your signature implies. Yes.
No, no it doesn't. You can't even answer a simple fucking question in another thread. You can't understand what a sentence says. Stick to graphs kid because that's the only thing you can read.
Your answer was one of the dumbest 3rd grade come back answers I've read on this forum, "Do they have to ask you if they can do it?"
Ahhh and the decent into madness continues. Congrats, you have officially reached troll territory.
All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.
Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.
Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.
Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
Yeah and Facebook states they will be cracking down on fake news in the future. The rule of thumb is--if you read a link--verify the truth of that link by looking at other sources, at least 2 or 3 others. If they don't exist then don't believe it.
50% of Reich wing news will be false or misleading, 25% of left wing news will be. Really the best (unbiased news source today) is PBS--they just tell the news without interjecting their personal opinions into it.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
No, it's clear that the War on the Rocks report and the PropOrNot list are treated as equal in the WaPo story, neither being primary or secondary. But again, the War on the Rocks piece is old, being prior to the election, and rests on evidence-free assertions from nameless "experts." And the War on the Rocks piece did not go so far as to give a list of Russian-backed websites like PropOrNot did.It appears that you didn't read the article, since the War on the Rocks piece is from November 6th and gives no evidence that Russia is doing any such thing. Like all claims that Russia hacked the DNC, the Clinton campaign's emails, or the election it rests on anonymous evidence-free claims from "experts" and "officials." Unfortunately, that doesn't constitute evidence."PropOrNot" is suddenly multiple organizations? Many of the organizations they claimed to be "allied" with came out and said they'd never heard of them.The Washington Post? Fake news spreading fake news....precious....
Fake News reporting on independent studies by multiple organizations... brilliant! You can't attack the information so you attack the source.
You obviously didn't read the article...it says there is more than one report.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House.
Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.
If I had a dollar for every person on this forum that responded to a post about an article without actually reading the article...I'd be able to rent a floor at Trump Tower for a day.
No if you read the article you would have easily seen that the main report the article is even written about is from the group, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and PropOrNot is a secondary source. You would have also read:
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
And you would have read this part about how this type of activity had already been studied by others:
The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
So, either you DIDN'T read the article...or you are just ignoring the facts in it.
No, it's clear that the War on the Rocks report and the PropOrNot list are treated as equal in the WaPo story, neither being primary or secondary. But again, the War on the Rocks piece is old, being prior to the election, and rests on evidence-free assertions from nameless "experts." And the War on the Rocks piece did not go so far as to give a list of Russian-backed websites like PropOrNot did.It appears that you didn't read the article, since the War on the Rocks piece is from November 6th and gives no evidence that Russia is doing any such thing. Like all claims that Russia hacked the DNC, the Clinton campaign's emails, or the election it rests on anonymous evidence-free claims from "experts" and "officials." Unfortunately, that doesn't constitute evidence."PropOrNot" is suddenly multiple organizations? Many of the organizations they claimed to be "allied" with came out and said they'd never heard of them.Fake News reporting on independent studies by multiple organizations... brilliant! You can't attack the information so you attack the source.
You obviously didn't read the article...it says there is more than one report.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House.
Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.
If I had a dollar for every person on this forum that responded to a post about an article without actually reading the article...I'd be able to rent a floor at Trump Tower for a day.
No if you read the article you would have easily seen that the main report the article is even written about is from the group, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and PropOrNot is a secondary source. You would have also read:
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
And you would have read this part about how this type of activity had already been studied by others:
The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
So, either you DIDN'T read the article...or you are just ignoring the facts in it.
And when I say I want their methodology on exactly how they came to the conclusion that these websites were in the employ of a foreign government saying that they used "internet analytics tools" just begs the question. What tools? What was the common code? What's the evidence that the common code has anything to do with Russia? When "exact phrases" are being used by different organizations or people how are they differentiating between a story going viral spontaneously and people working with the Russian government? What's the criteria to determine whether the speed at which a story spreads is spontaneous or whether it's coordinated? Who are these people? What are their qualifications? What are their biases?
The point is that by purposefully remaining anonymous these people could be anybody and their motivations could be anything. Nobody with a brain takes evidence-free assertions from anonymous people seriously. As for fear of retribution, I'm pretty sure if Russia wanted to hack these frauds they wouldn't exactly need to know their names. Maybe they'd just use "internet analytics" to do it.No, it's clear that the War on the Rocks report and the PropOrNot list are treated as equal in the WaPo story, neither being primary or secondary. But again, the War on the Rocks piece is old, being prior to the election, and rests on evidence-free assertions from nameless "experts." And the War on the Rocks piece did not go so far as to give a list of Russian-backed websites like PropOrNot did.It appears that you didn't read the article, since the War on the Rocks piece is from November 6th and gives no evidence that Russia is doing any such thing. Like all claims that Russia hacked the DNC, the Clinton campaign's emails, or the election it rests on anonymous evidence-free claims from "experts" and "officials." Unfortunately, that doesn't constitute evidence."PropOrNot" is suddenly multiple organizations? Many of the organizations they claimed to be "allied" with came out and said they'd never heard of them.
You obviously didn't read the article...it says there is more than one report.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House.
Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.
If I had a dollar for every person on this forum that responded to a post about an article without actually reading the article...I'd be able to rent a floor at Trump Tower for a day.
No if you read the article you would have easily seen that the main report the article is even written about is from the group, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and PropOrNot is a secondary source. You would have also read:
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
And you would have read this part about how this type of activity had already been studied by others:
The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
So, either you DIDN'T read the article...or you are just ignoring the facts in it.
And when I say I want their methodology on exactly how they came to the conclusion that these websites were in the employ of a foreign government saying that they used "internet analytics tools" just begs the question. What tools? What was the common code? What's the evidence that the common code has anything to do with Russia? When "exact phrases" are being used by different organizations or people how are they differentiating between a story going viral spontaneously and people working with the Russian government? What's the criteria to determine whether the speed at which a story spreads is spontaneous or whether it's coordinated? Who are these people? What are their qualifications? What are their biases?
Then write them an email. Ask them. I guess you ignored the point where their research came to the same conclusions as Rand Corp and George Washington university?
You also notice these places are trying to be fairly anonymous for fear of being the target of Russian hacks as revenge?
The point is that by purposefully remaining anonymous these people could be anybody and their motivations could be anything. Nobody with a brain takes evidence-free assertions from anonymous people seriously. As for fear of retribution, I'm pretty sure if Russia wanted to hack these frauds they wouldn't exactly need to know their names. Maybe they'd just use "internet analytics" to do it.No, it's clear that the War on the Rocks report and the PropOrNot list are treated as equal in the WaPo story, neither being primary or secondary. But again, the War on the Rocks piece is old, being prior to the election, and rests on evidence-free assertions from nameless "experts." And the War on the Rocks piece did not go so far as to give a list of Russian-backed websites like PropOrNot did.It appears that you didn't read the article, since the War on the Rocks piece is from November 6th and gives no evidence that Russia is doing any such thing. Like all claims that Russia hacked the DNC, the Clinton campaign's emails, or the election it rests on anonymous evidence-free claims from "experts" and "officials." Unfortunately, that doesn't constitute evidence.You obviously didn't read the article...it says there is more than one report.
If I had a dollar for every person on this forum that responded to a post about an article without actually reading the article...I'd be able to rent a floor at Trump Tower for a day.
No if you read the article you would have easily seen that the main report the article is even written about is from the group, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and PropOrNot is a secondary source. You would have also read:
The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.
And you would have read this part about how this type of activity had already been studied by others:
The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
So, either you DIDN'T read the article...or you are just ignoring the facts in it.
And when I say I want their methodology on exactly how they came to the conclusion that these websites were in the employ of a foreign government saying that they used "internet analytics tools" just begs the question. What tools? What was the common code? What's the evidence that the common code has anything to do with Russia? When "exact phrases" are being used by different organizations or people how are they differentiating between a story going viral spontaneously and people working with the Russian government? What's the criteria to determine whether the speed at which a story spreads is spontaneous or whether it's coordinated? Who are these people? What are their qualifications? What are their biases?
Then write them an email. Ask them. I guess you ignored the point where their research came to the same conclusions as Rand Corp and George Washington university?
You also notice these places are trying to be fairly anonymous for fear of being the target of Russian hacks as revenge?
Furthermore, nobody's questioning that multiple organizations have determined that Russians have hacked the U.S. That's clearly been the case for months. The point is that this "huge" story does nothing to shed more light on the subject by providing new evidence, merely repeating the same evidence-free assertions from anonymous nobodies that we've been hearing for months. There are two problems with this story: 1) It offers no evidence to back up any claims being made, but is instead being promoted as if it is evidence in and of itself; and, 2) PropOrNot's list, the problems with which I have already pointed out.
And the MSM tried to use their influence to elect Clinton - who was in turn funded heavily by various countries. So?
You claim to be so smart... but you still can't see the problem with Russia doing everything they can to affect the U.S. Presidential Election and get the candidate they want elected. So are you one of those savants with no common sense?
Democrats are masters of propaganda. they would make goebbels proudAnd the MSM tried to use their influence to elect Clinton - who was in turn funded heavily by various countries. So?
You claim to be so smart... but you still can't see the problem with Russia doing everything they can to affect the U.S. Presidential Election and get the candidate they want elected. So are you one of those savants with no common sense?
And the MSM tried to use their influence to elect Clinton - who was in turn funded heavily by various countries. So?
You claim to be so smart... but you still can't see the problem with Russia doing everything they can to affect the U.S. Presidential Election and get the candidate they want elected. So are you one of those savants with no common sense?
Wait they are going to call you a Commie now...
The problem from the start is the Alt-Right don't care about the truth... Actually they thought spreading false stories about Clinton was perfectly acceptable and an honorable thing to do..
Hilarious reading the usual suspects calling legitimate news sources like the Washington Post who's articles are all vetted before publishing like any other legitimate source "fake news."
The conservatives on this forum are literally the dumbest fucking people I've ever encountered in my life. No wonder we're so fucked as a country.
These same people suffer from so much confirmation bias that the only requirement for them believing in any article is whether it aligns with their own hate and internal beliefs. Fact checking is not necessary for these mental midgets. This is becoming a very disturbing personality flaw in American conservatives.
Hilarious reading the usual suspects calling legitimate news sources like the Washington Post who's articles are all vetted before publishing like any other legitimate source "fake news."
The conservatives on this forum are literally the dumbest fucking people I've ever encountered in my life. No wonder we're so fucked as a country.
These same people suffer from so much confirmation bias that the only requirement for them believing in any article is whether it aligns with their own hate and internal beliefs. Fact checking is not necessary for these mental midgets. This is becoming a very disturbing personality flaw in American conservatives.
Hilarious reading the usual suspects calling legitimate news sources like the Washington Post who's articles are all vetted before publishing like any other legitimate source "fake news."
No kidding, that would be like accusing Dan Rather of reporting a fake story.
It is sad when someone loses. Sad as they enter denial and make up reasons for losing. Really, really sad.All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.
Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
All election cycle people have been pointing out how so many fake news stories have been coming out of the media... and many anti-Trump people have blamed it on the Russians only to be mocked by his supporters. Well it is time to reap what you sow, because independent reports are coming out to show just how gullible you were. It WAS the Russians, and all their fake news stories were to help Trump get elected. Not just opinions, they have traced the sites, the tweets, etc. to Russia.
Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
Yeah and Facebook states they will be cracking down on fake news in the future. The rule of thumb is--if you read a link--verify the truth of that link by looking at other sources, at least 2 or 3 others. If they don't exist then don't believe it.
50% of Reich wing news will be false or misleading, 25% of left wing news will be. Really the best (unbiased news source today) is PBS--they just tell the news without interjecting their personal opinions into it.
You've been reading the forum, how many times have you seen these stories and it is like watching a moth attracted to a flame to see Trumpers jump into the threads piling on and liking every post? And the only proof they provide is from other fake sites that parrot the same article.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
I know they won't do it, or if the troll bots used IP masking devices, but I wonder how many Russian troll bots have been on this forum.
No kidding, that would be like accusing Dan Rather of reporting a fake story.
[
It is sad when someone loses. Sad as they enter denial and make up reasons for losing. Really, really sad.
