On Blacklists and Russia 'Hacking' American Democracy

>>87939

Details about this group continue to emerge. It appears there's a chance that PropOrNot is connected to groups funded the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a CIA spinoff that manages the U.S. government's foreign propaganda division. If true, that would make PropOrNot's activities illegal —in violation of a federal law that prohibits the BBG from intentionally influencing or swaying public opinion inside the United States. Creating blacklists of American journalists, labelling them as traitors and then circulating this information to American newspapers would certainly fall into that category.

Maybe Russia has the means to “hack” America’s elections, but it's hard to talk about it without real evidence. Sure, Russia’s been getting into the psyops game much more lately — with fake and biased news, comment trolls and Twitter bots. It’s cheap and effective, and good at exploiting people’s increasing lack trust in their country's institutions and political process. But in reality it seems to have very little penetration of America's media landscape.

cont.

>>87940

Let's face it: life is miserable and getting more miserable by the day for most Americans —and no one in power seems to care one way or another. Americans don't need a Russian Twitter bot to undermine their trust in the Democratic Party. And anyway, this kind of propaganda psyops isn't anything that the United States isn’t doing at this very moment against Russia on a much bigger level —just look at Tor, Internet Freedom and Radio Free Europe.

Put it this way: if Russian intel hacked Trump to victory and Trump is now Putin’s tool, well, the NSA and CIA and U.S. Naval intelligence and President Obama must be with the Russians on this. No one has said a thing. They’re all moving with the transition as normal. Whereas if it was really true, this info would not be coming from some anonymous outfit set up last week. The U.S. would be gearing up for real war with Russia.

FIN

Propornot identifies websites in the US that echo russian sources.
True, they're not all necessarily russian websites or otherwise "supported" by russians for their stories.
But Russian media is state vetted, so if websites are using them as sources, they're reliably going to be delivering a particular narrative and whatever misinformation that comes with that.

>Put it this way: if Russian intel hacked Trump to victory and Trump is now Putin’s tool, well, the NSA and CIA and U.S. Naval intelligence and President Obama must be with the Russians on this. No one has said a thing. They’re all moving with the transition as normal. Whereas if it was really true, this info would not be coming from some anonymous outfit set up last week. The U.S. would be gearing up for real war with Russia.

The relationship need not be so tight; it might simple be candidate X's platform aligns more closely with Russian interests so Russia decides it'll devote resources toward indirectly affecting election outcomes in favor of X.
There is some recenthistoric precedent for that, but I agree that I wouldn't necessarily place responsibility for Trump's win squarely on that. Regardless, it's worth investigating for its own sake.

>>87952
> Propornot identifies websites in the US that echo russian sources.

And? The free speech and free press protections guaranteed by the 1st Amendment means it’s perfectly legal to quote foreign sources.

> The relationship need not be so tight; it might simple be candidate X's platform aligns more closely with Russian interests so Russia decides it'll devote resources toward indirectly affecting election outcomes in favor of X.

If we’re going to be looking into that, then maybe we ought to start with Israel?…

>>88137
There is nothing inherently illegal under US law about russians, or americans sourcing russians, posting false news anywhere in any quantity. But that alone does not mean there exists no cause for alarm.

>If we’re going to be looking into that, then maybe we ought to start with Israel?…

Israel is known to use psyops as well and I'd agree that's worth considering. But the nature of this effort was apparently quantitatively and qualitatively more remarkable. Coupled with the fact that Russia's relationship with us as traditionally and in recent history been one of great enmity, this seems the more pressing instance of what could be a state actor looking to propagandize to our electorate.

>>88143
> But that alone does not mean there exists no cause for alarm.

Do you think the U.S. doesn’t propagandize Russians?

I see plenty of Russian posters here on 4chan and as far as I know, Putin ain’t shutting them out.

> this seems the more pressing instance of what could be a state actor looking to propagandize to our electorate.

Obama just handed the Israelis $40 BILLION scot-free, I’d say _that’s_ a far more pressing issue then shitposting Russians...

>>88162
Israel didn't hack one party's private communications and make them public to turn the election.

>>87939
Opinion pieces are prohibited by the sticky.

>>>/pol/

So what would be Russia's motive? They probably do hack a great deal of information but I don't see any motive for favoring one candidate over another. I think Trump just cracked a joke aka glib comment or perhaps wry humor and his humorless opposition took it seriously.

>>87940
>in violation of a federal law that prohibits the BBG from intentionally influencing or swaying public opinion inside the United States
didnt they get rid of this law in 2013.

>>88164

>>88269

>>88195

>Clinton has a clear anti-Russian agenda after the failed Russian reset
>wants a no-fly zone in Syria, which runs counter to Russian interests
>Russian news media and Trump supporters claim that she will start WWIII

>Trump wants to work with Russia to defeat ISIS
>Trump wants another Russian reset, literally the only change in the Republican platform he requested during the RNC
>Trump is anti-NATO, the biggest counter to Russian expansion

Hmmm, I wonder what motive Russia could have. It couldn't possibly be that Trump will be more favorable on Russia than Clinton, no it must be those damn overreacting Democrats.

>>88374
>Hmmm, I wonder what motive Russia could have.

"The Federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day.
As we have noted before, we remained confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out on election day.
As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

-- The Government --

>>88406

He was arguing motive, not if it actually happened. Only a complete idiot would say Russia didn't have a preferred candidate.

>>88407
>He was arguing motive

Indeed, Russian motives for hacking the election, which never happened.

>>88521

Except whether or not they did it is irrelevant to the argument of "do they have a motive?" These are two separate, though related, arguments of which both have fairly clear answers.

He was clearly arguing that the Russians have no motive, which is false because they clearly have plenty of motive and a preferred victor. If he was arguing that the Russians didn't hack the election, he would have a very stable platform to stand on since the decentralized nature of the US election system makes any hacks very difficult to pull off, especially on a national scale. But no, he was arguing that Russia has no stake in the election, which is patently false.

funny story

china has been hacking american companies, even american military, for years and has proven itself far more effective at jeopardizing american cyberspace. has there been any move by america to resolve that? at least anything announced publicly? diddly squat.

russia is the scapegoat this time. warhawks tend to look for who to blame rather than solve problems.

>>88594
>china has been hacking american companies, even american military, for years and has proven itself far more effective at jeopardizing american cyberspace. has there been any move by america to resolve that? at least anything announced publicly? diddly squat.
US is scared of china, hence the no action towards this super country.