krypto2000 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

So you really think a Russian sharing this conservative American article on Instagram is an "especially potent weapon in the Russian social media arsenal"?

---

The way I read the post's sentence is that "they were sharing this article on instagram, [instagram which has become] a very powerful weapon used by russia..." They are calling instagram the popular weapon, not the specific article being shared on Instagram.

---

I see what you're saying, but I think posting a picture to Instagram isn't nearly as damaging as this wording implies.

krypto2000 said:

What's your point, that this isn't a problem and we shouldn't talk about it because there are more influental things out there?

---

YES!  You finally interpreted one of my posts correctly. 

krypto2000 said:

What do you think incurs more fear in the public?

1.) ISIS

2.) Some pathetic crack head in baltimore with a 9mm?

I guess we should just not care if crack heads have illegal firearms bc ISIS is more of a threat? Do you see hoe that works? It doesn't.

---

That may be a good example.  Why should anyone care about a crack head in Baltimore with a 9mm, unless there's more to the story?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

I am confused. You're ssying thst tue eashington post is disinformation because they call out disinformation by others?

---

Yes.  It's the media's job to verify that the information they post is truthful, and not just to repeat establishment propaganda.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

What do you think incurs more fear in the public?

1.) ISIS

2.) Some pathetic crack head in baltimore with a 9mm?

I guess we should just not care if crack heads have illegal firearms bc ISIS is more of a threat? Do you see hoe that works? It doesn't.

---

That may be a good example.  Why should anyone care about a crack head in Baltimore with a 9mm, unless there's more to the story?

---

krypto2000 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

That may be a good example.  Why should anyone care about a crack head in Baltimore with a 9mm, unless there's more to the story?

---

Because they live in Baltimore and it directly effects them

---

krypto2000 said:

1.) Should deceptive advertising in politics be legal?

2.) Is it okay for foreigners to do so.

I would argue both 1 and 2 should be illegal if it can be properly legislated and controlled.

---

krypto2000 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I actually agree with you.

But the only organization accused of being a troll farm and paying for ads that I'm aware of is Concord Management...

---

Also cambridge analytica, we're not hearing enough about them, but they're at least as much of a problem as the russian's I'd imagine.

---

krypto2000 said:

Right, I agree. I wasn't saying CA was Russian, just that they are another prominent player that this is applicable too. Afaik Obama simply used Facebook to run an ad campaign, he didn't use deceptive/false ads or trolls in thr guise of humans.

---

krypto2000 said:

I don't think trolling should be illegal either. I don't think the issue is trolling per say. It's kind of like free speech vs fraud, if you use your speech and speech alone to deceive and fraud someone that doesn't make your fraud protected, it just means you used a legal tool to do illegal things. Similarly it's not the trolling or even the manipulation thst is the issue, it's the intended outcome of the trolling and manipulation that should be the issue.

---

Quote:

federal appeals court ruled Tuesday against a foreign company embroiled in a secret subpoena fight believed to involve special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s far-reaching investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

For weeks, the court had kept secret the nature of the fight over evidence, leading to a guessing game about who the secret witness is — a government official, a private citizen or a company.

Officials have not confirmed who the prosecutors on the case are, but on the day the court order under appeal was issued, two lawyers were observed exiting a sealed hearing before Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — who oversees grand-jury proceedings — along with five prosecutors with the special counsel’s office, including appellate specialist Michael Dreeben.

Siding with prosecutors Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a vaguely worded judgment that revealed a few new details but still kept the key facts under seal.

“The grand jury seeks information from a corporation owned by Country A,” the three-page decision said. The company had sought to quash the subpoena by arguing it is immune from such demands under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and because complying with the subpoena would cause the company to violate its own domestic laws.

---

krypto2000 said:

To the best of my knowledge it's never actually been said, nor have I even seen speculation, with what they did with the user data. We can assume they did not acquired 87 million users data simply for the hell of it.

---

krypto2000 said:

Maybe they did work with Russia for all I know (they did have a lose coordination with them in some way, directly or indirectly, as they requeested first access to the emails from wikileaks).

---

krypto2000 said:

As to the Instagram thing, I don't think the question of "is this allowed speech or not" is a relevant question to ask. The focus shouldn't be on any one post, it should be who is posting these things and what is their intent? If their primary intent is to willfully deceive the public for personal benefit then I think that should be deemed illegal(edit* and it should have a significsntly wide impact).

There's going to be a lot of gray area there and there is no fine line to draw. If I pay you 20$ to spend an hour on reddit posting on conservstive subreddits thst Trump is a pedo have I substantially effected anything (or even decieved anyone? There's real evidence he is a pedo after all)? No, that would be hard to argue. If I operate a troll farm with a 5 million monthly budget on the other hand tasked eith doing similar things have I affected anything? Yeah, I m think it's safe to conclude I have or it wouldn't be worth investing millions of dollars. So where's the line between two people and 100$ and an army with multi millions? That's not so cut and dry.

---