Me One page ago:
Goat today - A dramatatized summary:
I feel like you're presenting some solid evidence for those previous statements
Would it be by chance russian trolls who keep reminding people about biden's habit of touching women? Or is it Russian trolls who keep circulating the video of Biden attacking a constituent? Is it Russian Trolls who wrote this excerpt?
I mean like as evidence to the hypersensitivity of the community and the unreliability of twitter as a source here:
Person, a writer for GQ actually not only misidentifies >> as a specifically "Russian Quotation mark" (It's not, many european writing systems use << >> (German for instance as well as quotes like ours, and quotes along the bottom and top ) but then deletes the original tweet after being corrected? For reference the paper in question is a real newspaper :/ Not a troll.
My point here is that people are being jump scared, there's evidence of it outside this conversation and so far this conversation has been good evidence of it if you ask me. Anyway onto the rest of your post
I mean noting is ever going to be a real source to you, election results don't matter to you and polls and data don't matter to you. So tell me what source will ever be good enough for you? lol
And yes I read it. As you see they will meddle, and have been already in many ways and your claim is why would Putin ever want to do it a second time? Time is always stable and he won, the US lost. And that's never going to change. Cut the bad faith bullshit already, it will never win you any favors here.
The trolls have been at Biden. And
hey look hackers from Russia's intelligence targeted and hacked into Burisma Holdings. Strange how it all points to going after Joe and always when he has done well during this election, crazy right?
Oh look good sources that aren't twitter for a change. Ok so biden has slightly more negative coverage than he does positive/netural coverage by trolls. It's still split almost 50/50 (specifically 53n/47p+neut) So why then is it that we see biden supporters predominently only flagging overtly negative coverage as "Russian Trolls"? The distribution of actual troll accounts does not fit the degree/volume to which the "russia did it" scapegoat has been used. Furthermore we know that they aren't just
usually imitating average joes, even the Russian Troll post you claim to have "shit posted" was imitating a "news network" of some kind. IT's not their perogative to simply imitate loan individuals alone. And we'd be looking for coordinate campaigns as Your articles admit. In fact the MSNBC one can be quoted with this:
Meaning, we really don't know who or what out there is a troll at this point. The public understanding, your understanding, of this is largely built up on preconceptions that trolls are just going to be horrifyingly stupid people, maybe even indexed with poor english skills etc... etc... but we know this isn't the case. They're using very advanced techniques, they're using perfect english.
They do not want to be found they want to operate in a way that mimics real Americans closely and closely enough that they don't send out any red flags to alert people that way they can continue to propogate disinformation and build complex webs and networks of disinformation rather than simply irritate people online. I would honestly wonder if this isn't some kind Russian Troll'Ception where the Russian Trolls are the ones pushing the russian troll narratives. Because that would fit the MO (Disiniformation, and division), while also disrupting the mechanisms that were created post 2016 on social media platforms to identify and suspend accounts.
We also know that some american interests are also mimicking russian trolls.A quyote from that last link:
It's not wrong. And this is why you need hard real evidence not just supposition based off of flimsy amateur wordsmiths on a platform that uses a max of 140 characters to actually substantiate your claims. We absolutely must be certain.
Moving on to article 2. This talks about a hacking of burisam itself by likely russian operatives. This was done in direct response to Trump speaking out for it post ukraine. It's related to biden only in the tangential and is more in my lens a positivity piece for Trump or to provide more ammo to sow the political chaos at the time (during the impeachment hearings). Simply posting pieces about russian activities does not contribute in a meaningful way to say the activity of russian trolls. Two separate things. Like I'll give you that the Biden campaign, as the article states, used this as a way to boost his political prowess, but really I don't see that here. I see Russians fueling disinformation around impeachment, not specifically trolling biden. Biden was a useful tool, but not the subject, I'll change my tune there when the "emails from burisama" are leaked mid election. But until then, this was to screw with information flow around the hearings and trial. Context is important.
No. Twitter is a cesspool and it's not valid reading material. Stop consuming it its literally tainting your brain.
You've made a claim, one that interestingly would have public records. Please source the public records, or cite a reputable source with information pertaining to this. At present it just sounds like slander.
My writing on here would be "waaaaaay off" for many folks who know me professionally and personally. I'm sure the same can be said for any of us. I will however doubt that you have a personal knowledge of tara reade to know her linguistic patterns intimately enough to come to that conclusion.
If you're going to make this claim present a linguistic argument for this? There is a science to language, and I will tell you this: No one types online as they talk IRL Literally no one. Writing style is one thing, (And those tweets have a very similar style all definitely came from the same person), but you cannot gauge that without significantly more data. Present me a linguistic argument that the twitter account and her are separate people using available linguistic data.
Ew another tweet.
All I see here is a guy who is advising someone that a third party they were to speak to did not intend to use the information they received in good faith. I don't see anything unethical. And personally I think the quote is right.
I really don't see a problem with it. This stuff happens. I don't think its a knock against journalistic integrity to say "Hey becareful with this journalist she sounds like she has an agenda, and isn't being unbiased" You're blowing this way out of proportion. And "billions" of versions seems far fetched at best, even then I wouldn't be surprised if there are 4-6 actual versions of what happened. Human memory is a flawed thing at best, and we don't speak or write well when under pressure and our attentive resources are quite limited. You can pinch and squeeze and squirm and push a new story out of someone if you use the write talking points and go in with a specific framing which is exactly what the reporter you're deriding is saying.
Or maybe he's been harassed off of social media and is tired of seeing himself as being mischaracterized? There are multiple explanations for everything you say you're just selecting the one that conforms to your bias.
An investigation? That's where I think it should go.
money.cnn.com/2018/03/08/media/fake-news-mit-study/index.htmlI'm not the one making the claim. Sources.
Sources?
Sources? Because the ones currently referenced don't corroborate that perspective.
Is it though? Because I see it as pro-moderatism and quite anti-bernie. I think it's going to be a matter of perspective as to how we interpret the russian trollers and their messages. There are multiple ways to read that and I can get your reading but I also get mine. It's something that doesn't mesh well with the current politics of either side though and so it stands out.
And no I don't use twitter at all. It's a bad place for information.
Uh-hu.
"aint even need to modify 'virgin' template much" -- LMAO! Deadass.
