Current Affairs The General Election

[zzr45]

They literally ran a (typically poor) piece on this today

Leaked NHS papers 'put online by posters using Russian methods'

Questions about dissemination of documents do not mean they are fake, but pose new puzzle

www.theguardian.com

[PS: lol!!!! "A 19-page report published on Monday by the consultancy Graphika said that while it could not conclusively prove a Russian origin to the leak, the early distribution of the cache of files via Reddit, three German-language websites and an anonymous Twitter account reflected a method of operation seen repeatedly over recent years.]

Yes, like I said:


The notion of eradicating any sort of 'foreign influence' on British opinion is beyond absurd.

Or would you have @Bruce Wayne running citizenship checks before someone is allowed to post here?

Some types are fine (opinion columns, overseas press coverage); some is unfortunate but likely impossible to legally prevent, though it should be condemned (heads of state etc taking advantage of their position); and some should be resisted by any means necessary (interference by intelligence agencies).

Either all types of foreign interference are fine or no interference should be involved. Saying some is fine, others are not is problematic.

You are really struggling to follow this argument despite it being one you started.

For starters, First Dog is from the Australian section of the newspaper

No I’m not. Either it’s okay for foreigners to use media channels to influence elections, or it isn’t.

People seem to get a bit hypocritical about this.

 

[abelard]

Either all types of foreign interference are fine or no interference should be involved. Saying some is fine, others are not is problematic.

Why?

In other words, because it is impractical to ban foreign influence of British opinion on this website (or anyone else's), we shouldn't try to stop Russian intelligence (or anyone else's) from tampering with the outcome? That... seems to be what you're trying to argue here.

 

[zzr45]

Why?

In other words, because it is impractical to ban foreign influence of British opinion on this website (or anyone else's), we shouldn't try to stop Russian intelligence (or anyone else's) from tampering with the outcome? That... seems to be what you're trying to argue here.

How are Russian intelligence going to tamper with the outcome? Because once you answer that question (excluding hacking, tampering anything that would fall under the Computer Misuse act) the two are exactly the same.

 

[abelard]

How are Russian intelligence going to tamper with the outcome? Because once you answer that question (excluding hacking, tampering anything that would fall under the Computer Misuse act) the two are exactly the same.

Whereas Australian cartoonists are Australian cartoonists, the President of the United States is the President of the United States and Russian bots are Russian bots?

"All 'foreign' words are the substantively the same, regardless of author, content, context or intent" is.... quite the take.

 

[dead_soft]

Either all types of foreign interference are fine or no interference should be involved. Saying some is fine, others are not is problematic.


No I’m not. Either it’s okay for foreigners to use media channels to influence elections, or it isn’t.

People seem to get a bit hypocritical about this.

It's not that black and white and it's pretty obvious to anyone it isn't.

Okay: Foreign private citizens commenting on an election, as many a UK private citizen does on foreign elections. This includes writing opinion pieces in UK newspapers, making satirical cartoons. They are private citizens and should have freedom to do what they want. They certainly should have the freedom to make cartoons for the newspapers in their countries.

Not okay: Governmental figures trying to influence UK elections

 

[zzr45]

Whereas Australian cartoonists are Australian cartoonists, the President of the United States is the President of the United States and Russian bots are Russian bots?

"All 'foreign' words are the substantively the same, regardless of author, content, context or intent" is.... quite the take.

Wasn't the question I asked was it? They all have exactly the same intent. They are all attempting to, in one shape or another change the opinion of the British public. Either we allow anyone to do it, or no-one.

It's not that black and white and it's pretty obvious to anyone it isn't.

Okay: Foreign private citizens commenting on an election, as many a UK private citizen does on foreign elections. This includes writing opinion pieces in UK newspapers, making satirical cartoons. They are private citizens and should have freedom to do what they want. They certainly should have the freedom to make cartoons for the newspapers in their countries.

Not okay: Governmental figures trying to influence UK elections

So Pegida buying crap loads of advertising on Facebook to implore people to vote for UKIP as they are supportive of their anti-immigration message would be okay?

 

[dead_soft]

Wasn't the question I asked was it? They all have exactly the same intent. They are all attempting to, in one shape or another change the opinion of the British public. Either we allow anyone to do it, or no-one.


So Pegida buying crap loads of advertising on Facebook to implore people to vote for UKIP as they are supportive of their anti-immigration message would be okay?

The political movement Pegida? There's a chance it would go against Faecbook's terms as they are a massively racist organisation, and if UKIP were involved it would cause serious questions about the financing of the situation. It is of course different to an opinion piece in a newspaper too but if it wasn't crossing any financial rules, and wasn't massively hateful and wasn't a foreign power trying to subvert an election(which I imagine it would be) then of course they can. I think Facebook advertising and all social media advertising will have to be severely restricted and monitored but until then if it doesn't cross any rules then they can do it.

And, once again, it's a different kettle of fish

 

[zzr45]

The political movement Pegida? There's a chance it would go against Faecbook's terms as they are a massively racist organisation, and if UKIP were involved it would cause serious questions about the financing of the situation. It is of course different to an opinion piece in a newspaper too but if it wasn't crossing any financial rules, and wasn't massively hateful and wasn't a foreign power trying to subvert an election(which I imagine it would be) then of course they can. I think Facebook advertising and all social media advertising will have to be severely restricted and monitored but until then if it doesn't cross any rules then they can do it.

And, once again, it's a different kettle of fish

How?

Anyway, as long as it doesn't break the rules is your take away. Okay, why is Russian interference in the election something we should we be worried about?

 

[tsubaki]

Is the end point of this debate going to be where one side accepts the banning of anthropomorphic Aussie cartoons in exchange for the other side accepting the banning of foreign media ownership, foreign commentary, foreign funding of parties, politicians, pressure groups and astroturf organisations?

 

[abelard]

Is the end point of this debate going to be where one side accepts the banning of anthropomorphic Aussie cartoons in exchange for the other side accepting the banning of foreign media ownership, foreign commentary, foreign funding of parties, politicians, pressure groups and astroturf organisations?

We'll also all have to send in proof of our poll cards, because posting here without one is literally the same thing as an FSB psyops campaign!!!

Non-compliers should be reported to Prevent, the Electoral Commission, and MI5.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Is the end point of this debate going to be where one side accepts the banning of anthropomorphic Aussie cartoons in exchange for the other side accepting the banning of foreign media ownership, foreign commentary, foreign funding of parties, politicians, pressure groups and astroturf organisations?

Would you rather have Messi or DCL. Both are footballers and play as forwards...what's the difference?

 

[Jebus_lives]

We'll also all have to send in proof of our poll cards, because posting here without one is literally the same thing as an FSB psyops campaign!!!

Non-compliers should be reported to Prevent, the Electoral Commission, and MI5.

Did you know that throwing a stone is literally the same as launching tomahawk missile if both are used with the same intent.

 

[zzr45]

There we have it. Foreign intervention is all good as long as it’s positive about things you like.

Take a bow lads.

Tomorrow: Why it’s totally wrong to blame immigrants for the state of the country, but absolutely fine to blame billionaires.

 

[dead_soft]

How?

Anyway, as long as it doesn't break the rules is your take away. Okay, why is Russian interference in the election something we should we be worried about?

Because Russia is a state that has interests which don’t align with those of Britain. Foreign powers act in their own interests which means the interests of another comes secondary.
I think you think you’re getting to the heart of some hypocrisy but you’re just coming across as not understanding the situation in front of you.

 

[dead_soft]

There we have it. Foreign intervention is all good as long as it’s positive about things you like.

Take a bow lads.

Tomorrow: Why it’s totally wrong to blame immigrants for the state of the country, but absolutely fine to blame billionaires.

Another swing and a miss. Thanks for playing, better luck next time on ‘Basic Comprehension: GOT Edition’