I searched the Wikileaks Podesta emails and unless something was removed, I think I only found one chain where pizza was used in a very questionable manner. I’m pretty sure I did an exhaustive search as well. Everything else was just chain mails about (normal sounding) pizza parties to celebrate the campaign and such. Email list stuff. Not coded messages.
I will admit the one message is really weird, even trying to put it into some sort of legitimate context it’s hard to see how it would fit.
QAnon theories are false, but in my opinion, so are the beliefs of Islam.
And if the standard required for censorship is that "someone with related beliefs killed someone in Germany", or "there's like a whole subreddit for people who are frustrated with family members who believe this", then we've got to ban Islam, Christianity, Rap music, eyeliner, sports, and probably everything else you can think of.
Nobody banned 9/11 truthers from major internet communications protocols. Nobody banned birthers.
The shift in the US, in less than a year, towards banning speech that annoys the elites, is something I would've thought impossible a mere few years ago.
I was taught in high school that here in America we fought free speech with more free speech.
> you only have to look at how Trump behaves towards Putin to see something is not right
Look at how she dresses, she must be a witch!
That's basically your argument.
Trump loves authoritarians, he has deep authoritarian instincts. But as someone on the left, am not at all happy with all the hysteria and censorship frenzy all this has resulted in, because it will ultimately be used against things I care about too.
Seems too many don't have the foresight to see that.
> Trump loves authoritarians, he has deep authoritarian instincts
The left keeps saying that but I have never understood why. Why would an "authoritarian" be defending people's right to bear arms (2A), their freedom of speech (1A), States rights (federalism 10A) etc. I would even go as far as to say that the left is the one which is authoritarian and simply enjoys name calling assigning labels to the right as described as a tactic by Saul Alinsky which also happens to be loved by Hillary and Obama.
> Perhaps they see the QAnon movement, which led a man to carry a rifle into an open pizza restaurant, as more of a danger than censorship?
I agree regarding QAnon, where there are direct, credible threats of violence, of course that should be taken down.
I was responding to Russiagate, not QAnon.
Russiagate has resulted in downranking anti-war voices that don't necessarily align with cable TV takes on foreign policy. Basically the equivalent of saying going into Iraq is a mistake or support for BDS.
By “Russiagate” are you referring to the FBI investing on of the Trump campaign’s communication with Russians?
I’m not sure how investigating that was a bad idea. We also have a documented report that shows considerable coordination and a bunch of people pleaded guilty to crimes.
Should we have not investigated crimes because people find it too political?
> By “Russiagate” are you referring to the FBI investing on of the Trump campaign’s communication with Russians?
No. The FBI investigation I have no problem with. The surrounding hysteria that led to Twitter banning real people as bots for expressing skepticism over foreign policy in i.e. the Middle East and the birth of various shady companies that promised to deal with the "bot problem", but were in fact using bots for spamming themselves[1].
> I’m not sure how investigating that was a bad idea.
Investigating that wasn't. The various leaks that provided unnecessary fuel to the fire before the media storm before the investigators had their conclusions was not helpful however.
> and a bunch of people pleaded guilty to crimes
Yes. However these were usually for something they have done prior to working for Trump or for lying about certain details to the FBI, as far as I know no Americans were actually charged with conspiring with Russia during the election to benefit Trump, (whom I dislike BTW, but there's plenty of more substantial crimes that weren't looked at for some reason, like his dealings in Saudi Arabia even during the campaign or him using his hotels etc. for state business).
> Should we have not investigated crimes because people find it too political?
As I said above, the investigation I have no problem with.
“Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East?
It sounds like your connecting a bunch of dots that aren’t there. People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned [1]: Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation.
> “Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East?
I don't think you get my point at all. It's about any non-mainstream opinion on a political topic now.
Specifically, Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of fear of being accused of hosting Russian bots. As a result, they overacted and are now banning everything in sight that's not mainstream enough.
That means the next Iraq War, which all mainstream media were for, is going to have marginalized position on social media as these sorts of opinions are 'fringe' and banned.
For example were this implemented back then, if you said Iraq did not have WMDs, you'd get a 'fact check' saying it did, even as that was false.
Anything with words like 'military-industrial complex' etc.
> People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned
Right. That's exactly my point. They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before.
Furthermore, all this sets a precedent that I am certain the Republicans are going to be happy to take masterful advantage of once Biden is president.
All I am really saying is that while the FBI investigations themselves were fine in my opinion, the media frenzy and the resulting pressure on social media companies to ban everything in sight that's not NYT, (which does spread misinformation from time to time btw), so that they don't spread 'misinformation' was a short-sighted strategy that is very likely long-term going to be used against the left, which am not at all happy about.
==Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of being accused of hosting Russian bots.==
But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. We know they existed [1] and still exist [2]. A bonus report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee [3].
==They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before.==
Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. Once they had evidence, they started banning. I’m not sure what point that proves.
> But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots.
No. My premise relies on the idea that the Occupy accounts banned weren't bots, but were banned due to increased frenzy about banning everything non-mainstream as "Russian bots".
I am not saying that Russian bots don't exist. Merely that the increased frenzy around them has led to a bunch of accounts being banned that are in fact neither bots, nor Russian, for merely expressing some non-mainstream views. That's a bit different than just banning actual Russian bots.
I understand why they do it, in this environment, when unsure, proactively banning is the easiest way out, but that's exactly my problem with this.
And it's not just Twitter either[1].
> Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed.
So in your view left-wing people who want to reform Wall Street or are anti-war should be banned?
No they weren't. The whole "Russian bots influence elections" story is a QAnon style conspiracy theory, just one that took off amongst New York/Washington types, so they can't see that it's a conspiracy theory.
First of all, many pundits claimed they did change the outcome.
Second of all, I see few voices denying there's Russian bots trying to push stuff, my problem is not with banning the bots themselves, but with the collateral damage that's been done to non-bot accounts as a result of Twitter being very quick to ban nowdays, as a direct result of the pressure they were under after 2016.
No, a huge amount of coverage has been devoted both to trying to prove they exist and that they influenced elections or referendums.
I dug into this extensively at the time. A very large number of accounts being labelled as "bots" or "Putin trolls" turned out to be real people who lived in the west, when investigated by people who weren't under the spell of the conspiracy theory.
For example this guy who was accused of being a professional Russian troll but turned out to be a security guard in Glasgow:
You can tell it's a conspiracy theory because it's filled with stupid internal contradictions, like that Times article which claims the Russian accounts are both human and "cyborg", which they define as "automated but with human involvement" (which is it and why automate if you still need human involvement), or that the posts are simultaneously pro-Brexit and also pro-Remain:
Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division
That's something that comes up a lot. Journalists and lefty politicians claim "Russia" is trying to push all kinds of random policies they disapprove of, like Brexit. Yet when investigated these supposed bot accounts always turned out to have a wide variety of opinions, which is why the narrative eventually changed to generic "sowing division".
Another common theme is that Twitter accounts get fingered as bots based on nothing at all:
Bot-spotting tips. The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRL) offers social-media users tips for spotting a bot:
Frequency: Bots are prolific posters. The more frequently they post, the more caution should be shown. The DFRL classifies 72 posts a day as suspicious, and more than 144 per day as highly suspicious.
Anonymity: Bots often lack any personal information. The accounts often have generic profile pictures and political slogans as "bios".
Amplification: A bot's timeline will often consist of re-tweets and verbatim quotes, with few posts containing original wording.
Common content: Networks of bots can be identified if multiple profiles tweet the same content almost simultaneously
One influential account that these bots retweeted, which claims to be based in the Isle of Wight, now has the handle @davidjobrexit. In August The Times identified it as a probable Russian propaganda account because it tweeted the Kremlin line during Moscow office hours, among other indicators
Moscow office hours is GMT+3, i.e. same as European office hours. So these criteria describe 90% of Twitter.
The fact that they can't even pick a coherent motivation for the proposed conspiracy makes it one of the most pathetic such theories of our time, yet amazingly it's totally convincing to metropolitan centre-left types. The very same people who decry how easily the masses are fooled by misinformation and conspiracy theories.
== You can tell it's a conspiracy theory because it's filled with stupid internal contradictions, like that Times article which claims the Russian accounts are both human and "cyborg", which they define as "automated but with human involvement" (which is it and why automate if you still need human involvement), or that the posts are simultaneously pro-Brexit and also pro-Remain==
Processes being “automated with human involvement” is not new or a hoax. It happens all the time, all over the world, in all types of industries. Ask someone who works in manufacturing, writing bots, or in customer service.
And yes, the posts can be contradictory. Especially because the motive (as outlined by a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report) is to sow chaos. Promoting two extremes certainly helps do that.
FYI, I’m not going to respond to this thread any further. You have clearly dug in to your stance and don’t seem open to other views. You are literally creating a new, unfounded conspiracy to de-bunk an established, documented conspiracy.
Final question: If someone is falsely accused of murder, does that mean there is never murder or that in a particular case, a mistake was made?
Remember: the original stated motive of these supposed bots wasn't to "sow chaos", it was to support Trump and Brexit using huge networks of bots that appeared human but weren't. When the evidence that this wasn't real became overwhelming, the conspiracy mutated.
The whole idea that people disagreeing with each other on Twitter is sufficient to sow chaos is itself kind of ridiculous, don't you think? That happens all the time naturally, what kind of government looks at the USA or Europe and thinks, ah yes, a totally peaceful place in which nobody ever disagrees on Twitter. If this were true the only things people would fight about on social media are things where Russia could credibly have an interest, but of course they fight about everything. Even the premise of this conspiracy is ridiculous.
You are literally creating a new, unfounded conspiracy to de-bunk an established, documented conspiracy
Sigh. This is what I mean.
I'm alleging no conspiracy. Where did I do that? You don't need a conspiracy theory to work out why "Russiagate" took off - it gave lots of people whose grip on reality isn't that strong an explanation for Trump and Brexit that they preferred to the real explanations. No conspiracy needed, no evil puppet masters, just group psychology.
Compare that to Russiagate or QAnon - specific allegations of an organised group of people manipulating the world for evil ends, and denying they're doing it.
If someone is falsely accused of murder, does that mean there is never murder or that in a particular case, a mistake was made?
Obviously it can mean either. But the justice system has mechanisms to stop someone constantly accusing someone else of murder with ever changing stories and no evidence: the concept of double jeopardy and perversion of justice. That's why people don't have to deal with endless troll accusations of murder.
Seen as a criminal justice case, Russiagate would have ended in "not guilty" long ago. The given motive collapsed under cross-examination. The evidence is highly circumstantial and all has obvious alternative explanations. The guilty parties aren't usually named, and when they are named they turn out to not be Russian, or not be bots, or both. The alleged behaviour isn't even illegal; after all the USA deliberately and openly funds foreign propaganda outlets like Voice of America.
More information from the Senate Intelligence Committee [1] [2]:
"Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked closely with a Russian intelligence officer who may have been involved in the hack and release of Democratic emails during the election, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report released Tuesday."
"In particular, the committee’s investigation found that Manafort “represented a grave counterintelligence threat” due to his relationship with Kilimnik and other Russians connected to the country’s intelligence services — a bombshell conclusion that underscores how Russia developed a pipeline directly to the upper echelons of a U.S. presidential campaign."
> Perhaps they see the QAnon movement, which led a man to carry a rifle into an open pizza restaurant, as more of a danger than censorship?
Maybe it was because the mainstream media decided to completely disregard the crux of the matter and instead of debunking it piece by piece (which actually happened to a limited degree, but waaay too late) they either ignored or ridiculed it. Most people read the leaked emails, looked at strange instagram images of children and wondered what all this means and why nobody is investigating that.
Must be a nice tidy world where everything is just the media’s fault, except where you admit that they did the thing you are criticizing them for not doing.
Why hasn’t Fox cracked the case, they are a mainstream media company?
A colleague of mine sent me a link to a subreddit when it all started. I completely dismissed it but he insisted I read it. So I had a look and some content of the leaked emails made me feel quite uncomfortable. Of course I didn't believe the code they used actually refered to children, but I couldn't explain what it meant. Also, at that time I had no idea the accompanying instagram images were fake (at laeast some of them), and the people involved deleted/disabled their instagram accounts and suddenly became reticent. I thought I'd just refer my colleague to an online article debunking all this as bs, but I couldn't find any. The whole thing developed over several months, but nobody bothered to treat it seriously. It changed only after the gun incident.
The conspiracy grows faster than the claims can be fact-checked. This isn’t the media’s fault. In fact, conspiracies often use the media de-bunking as more evidence they are correct.
If I invent a claim that I am an alien, it isn’t the media’s fault if a bunch of people believe me. By the time the media can de-bunk my story, I’ve already pivoted to how other aliens have taken over the media and they can’t be trusted.
Yes, I get that. The problem is, with any other topic, the media would readily pick it up and maybe make a big story out of it before it could even bud. However, the email leak was a huge embarassement to the Democrats and hence the mainstream media, whereas Fox could conveniently choose to keep silent on the matter and watch the conspiracy theories grow.
Meanwhile, the Pizzagate article on Wikipedia is still protected.
So, they didn’t report news that was fake? The same people who call the media “fake news” are now upset that the media didn’t report on actual fake news. Strange times.
I will admit the one message is really weird, even trying to put it into some sort of legitimate context it’s hard to see how it would fit.