ADVERTISEMENT

Maybe they aren't all Russian Bots

Medic007 said:
Hmmmm, so the comments from Bret Schafer and the examples given aren't credible because "Daily Caller?" Interesting take. You're usually super smart, so what's your take?
Click to expand...

You have zero evidence to refute those headlines lol...just buying into the conservative groupthink. Per the usual haha.
 
Medic007 said:
Bret Schafer has the evidence and refuted those headlines. Why would I need to do that? He's their Communications Director. Man you're full on potato today.
Click to expand...

So you don’t believe Russian bots exist because he said that lol. Not once did they actually disprove Russian bots.

Someone’s buying everything they see lately hook, line and sinker haha
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
So you don’t believe Russian bots exist because he said that lol. Not once did they actually disprove Russian bots.

Someone’s buying everything they see lately hook, line and sinker haha
Click to expand...
Uhhh. So the Communications Director for the group whose data was used to write news stories says that most reporting about the data is "inherently accurate" means that I'm buying everything I "see lately hook, line and sinker?" Should I not believe the Communications Director for the group that the reporting has been "inherently inaccurate?" I have no fvcking idea what you're trying to say, but it's fascinating nonetheless.

The article addressed everything needed to have complete context. You claimed to have read it. If you did read it, you've got some serious reading comprehension issues or you can't actually read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek and GunsOfFrankEaton
“There isn’t any data that actually points to any specific location or group,” Bhat told Daily Caller.


So your thread title is actually correct, they aren’t all Russian bots. Doesn’t make a headline about Russian bots wrong, because, in fact, there are plenty of em out there.

Now tell me I’m wrong.
 
CSCOTTOSUPOKES said:
“There isn’t any data that actually points to any specific location or group,” Bhat told Daily Caller.


So your thread title is actually correct, they aren’t all Russian bots. Doesn’t make a headline about Russian bots wrong, because, in fact, there are plenty of em out there.

Now tell me I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
“More specifically, bots are only a small portion of the network that we monitor,” Schafer said. “We’ve tried to make this point clear in all our published reporting, yet most of the third-party reporting on the dashboard continues to appear with some variation of the headline ‘Russian bots are pushing X.’”

"Botcheck’s co-founder, Ash Bhat, admitted that there is no proof to show that the bots his site tracks are Russian – but that didn’t stop Business Insider and the Post from using “Russian bots” in headlines.

“There isn’t any data that actually points to any specific location or group,” Bhat told Daily Caller.

Bhat said that bots are on both sides of the aisle and they have a shared purpose, which is to divide America. "Categorizing all bots as being [a] ‘left’ or ‘right’ issue is wrong and only further divides us,” he said."

The New York Times has also cited the Hamilton 68 dashboard to claim that Russian bots sprang into action following the massacre in Parkland. Even reliably liberal BuzzFeed News is aware of the issue and published a piece headlined, “Stop blaming Russian bots for everything.”

Russia-linked bots are promoting pro-gun messages on Twitter in an attempt to sow discord in the aftermath of the Florida school shooting, monitoring groups say https://t.co/cPRZzRLNXOpic.twitter.com/Z4Oxbafz4K

— CNN (@CNN) February 18, 2018
BuzzFeed specifically pointed to the Times article, calling it “total bulls--t,” before noting that Hamilton 68 dashboard is the source “nearly every time you see a story blaming Russian bots for something” despite its own co-founder being skeptical.

“I’m not convinced on this bot thing,” Hamilton 68 dashboard co-founder Clint Watts told BuzzFeed. “They are not all in Russia… We don’t even think they’re all commanded in Russia.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
syskatine said:
Posting a FOX anything like it's reliable isn't a start.
Click to expand...

That's simply ignorant. As is a me saying that about NYT, Washpost, CNN, etc.

Your a lawyer for Christ's sake. We're both sufficiently intelligent to sift and validate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
syskatine said:
That's right. I sifted and validated FOX' stuff long ago. My time is valuable, they've proven over and over that they lie and distort.
Click to expand...

Your time isn't always valuable, you show that here.
And your response is still insufficient.

You're saying that you voluntarily choose confirmation bias instead of doing work and being challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
CBradSmith said:
Your time isn't always valuable, you show that here.
And your response is still insufficient.

You're saying that you voluntarily choose confirmation bias instead of doing work and being challenged.
Click to expand...


You need to read and consume real facts from real journalists. FOX is Exhibit A that you're engaging in confirmation bias. Fox doesn't get any more of my time. We've been through this -- every time I break down and spend time on that stuff it's either wrong or a clumsy op-ed.

Hell as I recall you and medic don't even acknowledge Russian bots -- it's all a conspiracy. Ditto with climate change and carbon. I just don't have the daylight to burn on convincing people the earth isn't flat and they shouldn't listen to a slack-jawed, nazi occultist.
 
syskatine said:
Fox? Really?
Click to expand...
I know you're heavily invested in those Russian Bots, in both time and energy. I'm sure it would crush you and Tea Pain to learn that the Russian Bot Twitter share button takeover was simply normal people using the Twitter share button.

For your unwillingness to challenge your Party's narrative, I award you a
feathers-hd-wallpapers-29.jpeg
 
syskatine said:
You need to read and consume real facts from real journalists.
Click to expand...

I choose to be well rounded, brother. I frequently read from NYT, CNN, and WashPost. I assume those meet your standards.

2 of those 3 are in the top 5 of peddlers of fake news.
 
syskatine said:
Hell as I recall you and medic don't even acknowledge Russian bots -- it's all a conspiracy. Ditto with climate change and carbon.
Click to expand...

Uh, wrong on both statements. Good grief. How are we going to remain friends if you put no effort into knowing me at all.

Stop being selfish and listen.
 
CBradSmith said:
Uh, wrong on both statements. Good grief. How are we going to remain friends if you put no effort into knowing me at all.

Stop being selfish and listen.
Click to expand...
For some reason his binary brain doesn't allow for understanding that I believe climate change has happened since the earth was formed and I'm simply dubious over the alarmist claims of how much man affects it.

Not sure how you got lumped in. I don't even know your take on man-made global cooling global warming climate change.
 
Medic007 said:
For some reason his binary brain doesn't allow for understanding that I believe climate change has happened since the earth was formed and I'm simply dubious over the alarmist claims of how much man affects it.

Not sure how you got lumped in. I don't even know your take on man-made global cooling global warming climate change.
Click to expand...

Same as yours. The overwhelming amount of research money has been hypothesis testing in one direction. Profit motive of climate change industry makes me skeptical of people's motives...not science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
CBradSmith said:
Same as yours. The overwhelming amount of research money has been hypothesis testing in one direction. Profit motive of climate change industry makes me skeptical of people's motives...not science.
Click to expand...
Oh but according to our climate czar sys, there is no such thing as funding bias. Simply cannot exist because "scientists." No way he could be wrong. He's very emphatic about it. Not a single person is in the climate change business industry whatever they call it to make money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
Medic007 said:
Oh but according to our climate czar sys, there is no such thing as funding bias. Simply cannot exist because "scientists." No way he could be wrong. He's very emphatic about it. Not a single person is in the climate change business industry whatever they call it to make money.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Most of them are emphatic.

An interesting mental exercise would be to say that suddenly the climate poles switched, righties pushing for carbon tax...lefties providing restraint or "wait and see."

What would the emphatic lefties do?
 
Brad, I think you agree with him in this climate change stuff. If you don't listen to someone paid to research, who will you listen to?
 
syskatine said:
Brad, I think you agree with him in this climate change stuff. If you don't listen to someone paid to research, who will you listen to?
Click to expand...
The bar is pretty low. A single alarmist prediction happening isn't asking for much. All of this money and science and shit and nothing. I wonder what people would think if medicine was the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back