Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Nov 2017 23:33 UTC
Internet & Networking

This week, representatives from Google, Facebook, and Twitter are appearing before House and Senate subcommittees to answer for their role in Russian manipulation during the 2016 election, and so far, the questioning has been brutal. Facebook has taken the bulk of the heat, being publicly called out by members of Congress for missing a wave of Russian activity until months after the election.

But one of the most interesting parts of yesterday's proceedings actually came after the big companies had left the room, and a national security researcher named Clint Watts took the floor. Watts is one of the most respected figures in the nascent field of social media manipulation - and when it came time to diagnose root of Russia's platform meddling, he put much of the blame on the decision to allow anonymous accounts. As long as Russian operatives can get on Twitter and Facebook without identifying themselves, Watts diagnosed, foreign actors will be able to quietly influence our politics.

I decided to keep this particular part of the hearings currently underway out of the previous item I posted because I feel it's too important not to be discussed on its own merit. The concept of anonymity online is a complex issue, and instinctively, I want to say it's one of the greatest things about the internet. What part of it are we willing to give up - assuming we still have it or parts of it to begin with - to prevent dictators like Putin from meddling with our elections?

Permalink for comment 650491
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If you believe the Russia narrative..
by bassbeast on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 03:05 UTC
Member since:

I have a bridge you might be interested in. Look at her approval ratings before she started running, 16%. After a year and a half of the media slobbering all over her? 15%. Basically a mummified turd of Richard Nixon could have beaten her in a general election.

We didn't need Russia to show us what we already knew, we already knew about her taking a hammer to devices under subpoena, already knew about her dirty dealing the SOS job with pay to play deals with countries like Qatar, already knew she changed position more often than a windsock in a hurricane, knew about her passing out, her "spells" where she would just spaz out or couldn't catch her breath, the list goes on.

The only thing that was shocking about the 2016 election is the money men thought they could push someone so universally hated, someone who came off like she was entitled to the job of POTUS and who called anyone who didn't agree with her an "ist" had a chance in hell of winning. She basically spat on the flyover states, didn't even bother to campaign in many swing states because she thought she had it in the bag, she was about the worst possible candidate that the DNC could have shoved out on stage.

Reply Score: 1