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?

Thread beginning with comment 650501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by p13.
by p13. on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by p13."
Member since:

My fascist homeboy Putin? I can walk to your border from where i live.
Russian troll farm? I've been posting here since Eug founded the place.

I'm against shooting down civilian aircraft. Who says i'm not? See how that works?
Did Putin push the button that fired that missile? No. Did the Russian military fire that missile? Possibly. Did Russia impede the investigation? Absolutely. Does that mean they have something to hide? Very likely.

Want to count the civilians killed by the good ole US of A in Iraq and Afghanistan? Wikileaks not enough for you? No investigation there. The "no comment" routine from the white house on anything that makes THEM look bad looks very similar to their .ru counterparts, doesn't it?
Napalm in Vietnam, uranium tipped bullets in the middle east. The ONLY country to ever use a nuclear device against another country. TWICE!

Nobody's a saint in this game. That's all i'm saying.
Pot, meet kettle.

Edited 2017-11-02 09:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by p13.
by tylerdurden on Thu 2nd Nov 2017 17:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by p13."
tylerdurden Member since:

Indeed. I think people's dissonance gets tickled when they have to encounter a situation in which both sides are on the wrong.

For the US, of all countries, to complain about a foreign country just adds a rich sense of irony.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by p13.
by giddas on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 13:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by p13."
giddas Member since:

All good points but the person you're replying to isn't American

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by p13.
by p13. on Fri 3rd Nov 2017 13:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by p13."
p13. Member since:

And i'm not Russian ...

I actually live close to Thom, geographically speaking.

Reply Parent Score: 2