Don't forget it takes place in this context -
It's not an extraordinary claim.
It's not an extraordinary claim.
For quite some time too, that story links to one from feb 2012The Guardian in England have been considering this issue.
It's not an extraordinary claim; neither are a lot made here on this very site about the US, but they are framed as such. But regardless, claims require evidence. Not just 'some hacked emails' from 'some Russian hacker.'Don't forget it takes place in this context -
It's not an extraordinary claim.
Right, and there is only speculation based on hacked emails from some Russian hacker.The question here is if there are a lot of people employed to spread pro-Russian propaganda on the Internet, and if these emails are evidence of such.
The question is NOT if pro-Russian propaganda exists, or does not exist.
The question is NOT if it would be justified or not.
It's just about the claims of evidence made in this article:
So it's ok to posit your opinion but not expect a response? Why?No, not at all. Governments have propaganda department. Do you think that this type of thing is not likely? I seems reasonably likely to me. The question here is if the evidence supports it.
I asked you rhetorically in response to your question "Quite a huge leap, isn't it?"Right, and there is only speculation based on hacked emails from some Russian hacker.
You just asked me if it was reasonable to assume Russian propaganda existed. Now you're saying it's not about that. I guess your last post was aimed at...yourself.
That seems to depend on personal preference. It seems highly likely to me given what we know about cold-war Russia and the current trend towards the old ways and I'm content with that, but if someone digs further and finds evidence to indicate otherwise or call it into doubt then I'd have to revise.Or are the contents sufficient?
It's a claim...why is the burden of proof on me?That seems to depend on personal preference. It seems highly likely to me given what we know about cold-war Russia and the current trend towards the old ways and I'm content with that, but if someone digs further and finds evidence to indicate otherwise or call it into doubt then I'd have to revise.
Josh, do you have any evidence or reasons to think that the claim is not true?
Slow down Josh. This isn't a semantic game.Ok, so you're asking that question rhetorically as if it is proof that these allegations are legit?
If not, what was the point of that question?
Did you read the Guardian story? There's a lot of corroborating evidence.You seem to be giving this anonymous source too much credit.
Given that we don't know the source (once again, some hacker)
So that's it, because America is 'just as likely' to put out propaganda, this story is probably false? That's not a reason.and America is just as likely to put out propaganda...less than your 50%.
You diss conspiracy, but (for some reason) you hitch onto this one?You you think there's a 1 in 20 chance that this is real. Seems significant enough to look into then. Maybe you should read some of the emails? Some of the surrounding discussion?
You also think there's a 19 in 20 chance it's an elaborate fake. Either way it's a very interesting story.
Great. Some anonymous group. Lies as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying if you're going to claim the US and Russia can put out propaganda, why believe it's russian and not the US? Why pick either? Unless you have a bias.
So that's it, because America is 'just as likely' to put out propaganda, this story is probably false? That's not a reason.
And if you're saying America is just as likely to put out propaganda as Russia, then by your own logic, it's likely.
Why?Lies as far as I'm concerned.
I'm saying if you're going to claim the US and Russia can put out propaganda, why believe it's russian and not the US?
I don't believe everything I read on the Internet. Especially baseless assertions from news sites, obtained from emails from anonymous hacker groups.Why?
It's one possibility of many. None of which should be jumped to as a conclusion. Not without facts. I see enough speculation to make my head spin, but nothing can be seriously verified.Do you mean you think it's American shills pretending to be pro-Russian commentators to create anti-Russian sentiment?
It's more effective and less obvious than open shilling. Remember last year or the year before when news came out about China's internet commenter "farms" that the government used to generate positive internet postings? They were always nothing but glowing praise for China and everything it did, often to the point of absurdity. It made them ineffective to the point of comedy, and a joke among other Chinese internet users.What if they are trying to influence opinion by generating antagonism and controversy?
Semantics, but if you look at RT, they rarely say "Russia is great", instead they stir things up by discussing American involvement in things, even suggesting 9/11 was "an inside job"
They're not asking you to debunk Propaganda Josh, they're asking you to provide evidence that you believe their claim is bunk or false.. thats all. Personal incredulity isnt going to do it.. and while I agree with some of what you're saying, I havent seen evidence other than what's been provided here so far. Dont take this as Mick and the others baiting you, or trying to push you.. they're just asking for you to provide any evidence you have to the contrary of their own.. thats all.I'm not here to debunk propaganda; I'm also not here to promote it.
There's no incredulity here; it's not 'I don't believe it,' it's more like 'I haven't been given a reason to believe it based on what's been presented.' It's not up to me to prove why I don't believe it; it's up to the source to prove it's true.They're not asking you to debunk Propaganda Josh, they're asking you to provide evidence that you believe their claim is bunk or false.. thats all. Personal incredulity isnt going to do it.. and while I agree with some of what you're saying, I havent seen evidence other than what's been provided here so far. Dont take this as Mick and the others baiting you, or trying to push you.. they're just asking for you to provide any evidence you have to the contrary of their own.. thats all.
I would trust anonymous information, under the premise that the information can be verified in some way.I don't trust anonymous information.
Good! We're on the same boat.I'm not saying any of this is true. I'm saying it does not seems unreasonable.
How can we find out? FOIA requests? How could we find out about programs without some whistleblower or in this case, hacker, bringing things to light? I've always been curious. Even in the late '90s when I first started using the internet, I remember occasionally thinking "why wouldn't a government have people on the Internet, spying and swaying opinion?" It seems reasonable, but I never had real evidence of it.The thread partly falls under the meta debunking exemption - as the presence of paid shills on the internet around particular topics has implications for debunking. Is it real? How much? How can you deal with it? How can you avoid being accused of it? Can you detect it? Is there any here?
So you don't think they already are out there?I think it's also going to be significant for the future of discussion on the internet - especially when AI chatbots start getting in on the act.
there are many Russians that know proper English, so why paying anyone who doesn't have basic language skills? It just doesn't add up.The article in the OP sems to mainly discuss actual Russians, with their bad English. Is there any evidence of US citizens being recruited to do similar things?
"Anything of value from a foreign national", that's awfully broad, conflating foreign nationals with foreign governments. Is there a problem with the Russian or Belarusian national Vitali Shkliarov advising the campaigns of Bernie Sanders, Obama, and other Democrats?She did not directly name check Trump but I think it's clear who the FEC chair is aiming this tweet at.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories||General Discussion||19|
|Explained: EU Army Deployed to Paris||Conspiracy Theories||1|
|Explained: Head Of The Army Admits to "Little Green Men" [Covert Russian Agents]||Conspiracy Theories||7|
|Russian Troll Houses||Practical Debunking||24|
|Claim: Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America||Conspiracy Theories||0|