you mean you aren't controlling the narrative?

tough shit.

More evidence this pro-Putin, pro-Russia posts will have comments with hundreds of upvote pointing out how the posts are pure propaganda. It seems the vote briganding/botting only works to put the stories on the front and don't curate the comments.

it doesn't look like you know anything for a fact dude. you can be anti government bullshit lies and still NOT be pro russia/putin.

your simplification is horeshit.

That's his entire point. People here are not pro Russia or pro Putin, yet day after day, articles from RT and Sputniknews get upvoted to the front page and the comment section is full of people calling it out.

As someone who is here everyday... I have no idea what you're talking about. What?

Okay. Is the content of the link suspect?

Of course it's suspect. It's about two brutal dictators saying a story written a out the war they are conducting is bullshit.

Dude, don't even try it. This place can no longer be reasoned with.

When people post links, it says the source. Today there's (sputniknews.com). The last few days we've had (rt.com) stories at the top of our front page. Not sure why a conspiracy sub would be in bed with actual Russian propaganda.

Don't get your news about Russia from Russian news, and don't get your news about America from American news.

Claiming every single news organization that comes out of Russia is no different than claiming all American MSM is propaganda.

RT puts out some quality content. There's a reason Larry King and Ron Paul support them... and it's not because they're Russian spies.

As a conspiracy sub, it's important to analyze information from everywhere, and determine the value based on the actual information and not just because someone else deemed an entire organization as propaganda.

If someone starts posting RT articles about Putin's approval ratings, then sure go ahead and call bull shit bull shit.

This. Well said.

Is the data on those links bad? We post links from everywhere but if the data is good, who cares the author site?

In theory your right, but the data isn't good. Here's just a few examples of actual fake news coming out to support Kremin's narrative:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-contemporary-Russian-propaganda

Neverymind the irony of banning CNN while allowing actual Russian propaganda in a sub that is supposed to encourage free thought no less.

We don't want to move to ban CNN, we want to have their links archived so they aren't rewarded with the clicks is all.

And if archives.is goes down or is automodded next?

Hmm, good points.

CNN content isin't banned though? Only links to the domain are prohibited...is that not clear from our announcement?

There is a group of users working hard to equate banning links of a certain domain as equivalent to banning the info on the domain and censorship. They are motivated to not consider they are incorrect.

There's been a flurry of outside subreddits linking to thread sadly, which unfortunately has the aim of manipulating organic discussion to change perception of the actions taken here.

It's no doubt unfortunate, but sadly the only recourse the mods have is to let the admins know (and use contest mode where appropriate depending on the scale of the briagde).

Nothing we haven't seen before or can handle. Mods are keeping it clean without being heavy handed.

Thanks man, doing our best :)

I don't care how you spin it, if you delete a post from CNN domain, that's censorship. OK, maybe if you could edit the posts to point the archive.is, I'd buy it. But that's not what's happening, and you'll be banning anything CNN content as "punishment". This is censorship.

Meanwhile, you'll be allowing this actual Russian propaganda on our front page. Like it or now, the appearance is that the mods are taking sides here.

Ehh I wouldn't go that far. That sounds like a direct course for confirmation bias.

I get what you mean about if the data is good, but "data" is such an overused term now that it's lost its meaning. If CNN or Salon writes an article with all their "data", it really doesn't mean shit. Just like if a little-known conspiracy website gives "data", you've got to be very critical of it and make sure to trace the source as much as possible before it becomes credible.

In terms of Russia talking shit on the US in any form of media though, those are the stories that a lot of times are well sourced and provide a good amount of supporting data, mainly because the US is pretty easy to shit on. Just like it's easy for the US to shit on them with all the fucked up things their government does. Why are we to assume that when our government talks shit about Russia it is reliable, but when Russia talks shit about America it's all propaganda?

Just look at what Wikileaks released. EVEN IF IT WAS the result of Russian hackers, did they alter any emails? Insert falsified ones? No. They just released the actual words of an organization, and everyone lost their shit.

I don't think the emails can truly be edited without breaking the DKIM encryption, right? Guessing that proves the emails validity.

As for sourcing, it is so muddy now. It seems no source isn't perfect, but seems we got to wing it and figure it out. :(

RT has been fairly commonly posted before this sub decided it was the devil, mainly because it was very critical of Bush era politics and the war. It showed the sides the people felt like they weren't hearing, and people enjoyed discussing those subjects during the Obama administration.

But whatever.

Or maybe we don't buy into the perspective that Russia is this all encompassing boogeyman. Maybe you meant to post this on a more left sub?

I get where you are coming from, but could I ask you a question? Do you think there is any piece of evidence that could convince you Russia is a threat? Because I'm thinking if you think Russia isn't a threat, and you don't trust the intelligence committee, then no amount of evidence could convince that person.

good question. I personally think lots of countries and corporations attempt to influence elections in all countries they have interests in. The USA does it, and as I think it was Time magazine that published how we had influenced the Russian election to get Boris Yeltsin elected. So who knows who did what first, doesn't matter.

To say Russia mettled doesn't bother me. If they are found to have actually hacked machines, or paid people to vote illegally, or something very easily provable illegal - that would make me feel there was a problem and I would definitely switch my opinion.

How would you feel if they were shilling like CTR does?

I kind of think they do. We have to swim through shills of all types. I wish we didn't have anyone shilling here.

Btw, I wanted to thank you. While you don't agree with me and choose to believe in the Russian meddling perspective, you discuss it without emotion like many others in that position do.

I have an open mind and will switch on a dime if the data shows Russia did more than just meddle.

No problem broski :) Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions and I've found there is often good reasons for the way they think about things. I think it's more important to have civil dialogue with each other than trying to be divisive.

Sorry I didn't reply to you last night. I have family visiting so commenting and posting is kind of on the back burner right now, haha.

The US State Dept and USAID-funded NGOs influence elections literally everywhere and also help to stage demonstrations, coups and so called "color revolutions". They've been doing this since the cold war and never stopped, only intensified it. They've promoted some protests against Putin. Russia has been developing its own capabilities in response to that. Apparently both sides were recently in a meddling contest in Macedonia.

Yes, it is why I can't allow myself be swept into being upset if Russia nettled, because then I need to be upset at GE, or ATT or China or etc etc etc having mettled.

That is, once I get past the hypocracy that the Us mettles.

Nyet, there no Russia bot.... Byoop Byeep Byoop....

There was a really good Reply All podcast recently about Russia's relationship with social media

https://gimletmedia.com/episode/100-friends-blasphemers/

Basically, Russian people were using LiveJournal to be very critical of the Putin government. The government tried to counteract this initially by posting there themselves only to find huge resistance from the general public.

Their solution...buy the company and threaten dissidents with jail.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/10/russian-owned-livejournal-bans-dissenting-speech-to-please-putin/

The podcast has a great story about a politican wanting to appear as though he was helping put out forest fires in Russia. He posted that he had put out one fire. However, the LiveJournal community were insistent that there were no reported fires in that area at all so he must've gone there to set the fire himself and then put it out.

Sounds like something on VEEP or The Thick of It