You can say you saw child porn being posted, but surely you cannot actually be claiming that this was what shut down the group when the people who manage and are in charge of the group are acknowledging that there was no coordinated, large-scale attack?
The person in charge of one of several groups said that. He later proved to be a Hillary supporter. I also never said anything about large-scale or coordinated?
This is kind of incredible, really, given that this entire thread was meant to discuss the public gaslighting of Elizabeth Warren by Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
I've said in here a couple of times that I don't deny the experiences of Hillary supporters on social media.
Well of course you witnessed it happening. Serious question - have you listened to or read descriptions of any of the Russian internet interference? Because what you described is *exactly* like thousands of other encounters many had. Not only that, but everyone involved swears that they know what happened, and it was in fact bots and the Russians.
I know what some of the memes look like. Buff Bernie, Yosemite Sam, etc.
You said in this thread that these posts were the reason multiple groups were shut down. It appears that is not actually true and the groups and many others were shut down due to an unrelated glitch. Would you like to revise your position or are you just going to keep on with the talking points?
Well of course you witnessed it happening. Serious question - have you listened to or read descriptions of any of the Russian internet interference? Because what you described is *exactly* like thousands of other encounters many had. Not only that, but everyone involved swears that they know what happened, and it was in fact bots and the Russians.
I know what some of the memes look like. Buff Bernie, Yosemite Sam, etc.
I highly suggest you look into it, as it's far more extensive than memes. Especially the stuff they were doing in forums and facebook groups. Even farther back than that, there has been a history of people who are paid through firms to troll internet forums. They spend years in forums building a history, being paid to sway opinion one way or another. One article to get you started: www.vox.com/world/2018/4/11/17224294/reddit-russia-internet-research-agency
You said in this thread that these posts were the reason multiple groups were shut down. It appears that is not actually true and the groups and many others were shut down due to an unrelated glitch. Would you like to revise your position or are you just going to keep on with the talking points?
I am not revising my position. The groups were taken down because of what was posted to the groups and then reported. My position is that the "glitch" wasn't a thing.
You said in this thread that these posts were the reason multiple groups were shut down. It appears that is not actually true and the groups and many others were shut down due to an unrelated glitch. Would you like to revise your position or are you just going to keep on with the talking points?
I am not revising my position. The groups were taken down because of what was posted to the groups and then reported. My position is that the "glitch" wasn't a thing.
This is really not evidence of anything. This is exactly why bots and Russian trolls get away with interference.
You said in this thread that these posts were the reason multiple groups were shut down. It appears that is not actually true and the groups and many others were shut down due to an unrelated glitch. Would you like to revise your position or are you just going to keep on with the talking points?
I am not revising my position. The groups were taken down because of what was posted to the groups and then reported. My position is that the "glitch" wasn't a thing.
... This is, literally, in the article that was posted. Where Facebook said that the reports weren't what did it.
Post by turnipthebeet on Jan 14, 2020 17:14:41 GMT -5
I'm not touching the mess on the last several pages. My issue with the entire situation was that the comment came during a meeting between the two candidates, wherein they appeared to form some kind of pact/alliance and agreed to go easy on each other. That's not what we need - we need them being truthful in their questions and answers about how they feel about the other candidates. It's almost a "lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas" situation. I don't blame Warren/her camp for leaking this information, but the meeting itself just feels shady to me.
I'm not saying that they should have been slinging mud the whole time, but I think that they have been treating each other with kids' gloves and that's not doing the voting population any favors.
Full disclosure: I intend to vote for Biden during the primary.
I am not revising my position. The groups were taken down because of what was posted to the groups and then reported. My position is that the "glitch" wasn't a thing.
... This is, literally, in the article that was posted. Where Facebook said that the reports weren't what did it.
I know that's what Facebook said. I'm saying I don't believe everything Zuckerberg says.
... This is, literally, in the article that was posted. Where Facebook said that the reports weren't what did it.
I know that's what Facebook said. I'm saying I don't believe everything Zuckerberg says.
Your entire position is basically just a conspiracy theory then. It’s impossible to have any real conversation with someone who doesn’t care about facts.
Refuses to post articles to back up ascertains. Refuses to believe articles from any site not deemed credible enough (even if there are links back to source articles). Refuses to read articles. Claims gaslighting when presented with evidence that what they saw may have been factually different than what they believe.
This is pretty much every experience I've ever had with a bernie-bro right here. All I need is a few tears and being called mean and it would fill up my bingo card.
Refuses to post articles to back up ascertains. Refuses to believe articles from any site not deemed credible enough (even if there are links back to source articles). Refuses to read articles. Claims gaslighting when presented with evidence that what they saw may have been factually different than what they believe.
This is pretty much every experience I've ever had with a bernie-bro right here. All I need is a few tears and being called mean and it would fill up my bingo card.
YUP. I truly do appreciate johncandy hanging around, though. I mean this thread turned into a live-action example of how to handle a BSsupporter, &, thus: served as a GoTo reference resource should anyone experience in the future. Think of bookmarking, guys!
I know that's what Facebook said. I'm saying I don't believe everything Zuckerberg says.
Your entire position is basically just a conspiracy theory then. It’s impossible to have any real conversation with someone who doesn’t care about facts.
Someone else in this thread is saying it was Russian bots. That's also a conspiracy theory. But again, I saw all of this happen in real time.
There's a link to the Facebook group where that admin made that statement, and the comments below are explaining why it's wrong.
"database error" .... I work in IT ... I can't really think of a database error that would produce that outcome on Facebook the night before multiple primaries no less lol
Not really a database error.. The system was bombed with reports and took the group pages offline. It's an automated response. Downside for the "database error", is that there's screenshots of the reports made against the pages.
No. It isn't a "database error". I've been a full-stack software engineer for 15 years, and this would be the kind of thing that would get DBAs fired. No one was fired or even reprimanded, from what I've heard from my colleagues who work @ Facebook's HQ in Palo Alto. Sorry, don't buy it.
Refuses to post articles to back up ascertains. Refuses to believe articles from any site not deemed credible enough (even if there are links back to source articles). Refuses to read articles. Claims gaslighting when presented with evidence that what they saw may have been factually different than what they believe.
This is pretty much every experience I've ever had with a bernie-bro right here. All I need is a few tears and being called mean and it would fill up my bingo card.
YUP. I truly do appreciate johncandy hanging around, though. I mean this thread turned into a live-action example of how to handle a BSsupporter, &, thus: served as a GoTo reference resource should anyone experience in the future. Think of bookmarking, guys!
Hmmm. I've really been making an effort to be polite. I have to be "handled"?
Your entire position is basically just a conspiracy theory then. It’s impossible to have any real conversation with someone who doesn’t care about facts.
Someone else in this thread is saying it was Russian bots. That's also a conspiracy theory. But again, I saw all of this happen in real time.
There's a link to the Facebook group where that admin made that statement, and the comments below are explaining why it's wrong.
"database error" .... I work in IT ... I can't really think of a database error that would produce that outcome on Facebook the night before multiple primaries no less lol
Not really a database error.. The system was bombed with reports and took the group pages offline. It's an automated response. Downside for the "database error", is that there's screenshots of the reports made against the pages.
No. It isn't a "database error". I've been a full-stack software engineer for 15 years, and this would be the kind of thing that would get DBAs fired. No one was fired or even reprimanded, from what I've heard from my colleagues who work @ Facebook's HQ in Palo Alto. Sorry, don't buy it.
It's neither a theory or a conspiracy. It's a fact.
I have seen zero evidence to suggest that this particular incident being discussed is the result of Russian bots. So yes, it is a theory. About a group of people conspiring to do a nefarious thing.
Your entire position is basically just a conspiracy theory then. It’s impossible to have any real conversation with someone who doesn’t care about facts.
Someone else in this thread is saying it was Russian bots. That's also a conspiracy theory. But again, I saw all of this happen in real time.
There's a link to the Facebook group where that admin made that statement, and the comments below are explaining why it's wrong.
"database error" .... I work in IT ... I can't really think of a database error that would produce that outcome on Facebook the night before multiple primaries no less lol
Not really a database error.. The system was bombed with reports and took the group pages offline. It's an automated response. Downside for the "database error", is that there's screenshots of the reports made against the pages.
No. It isn't a "database error". I've been a full-stack software engineer for 15 years, and this would be the kind of thing that would get DBAs fired. No one was fired or even reprimanded, from what I've heard from my colleagues who work @ Facebook's HQ in Palo Alto. Sorry, don't buy it.
The occupy democrats article was posted while it was happening, not afterwards. It doesn't support your theory.
The heavy.com article also reports what Facebook said, and is an earlier article before the final statement was released. However, it does say this: However, there’s no proof of any connection between that PAC and this attack, and definitely no proof of any connection between the PACs and the pornography posts, which were likely from unrelated trolls and spammers.
Also, the Russian thing isn't a conspiracy. It has been thoroughly examined by several government agencies and service providers. It happened, and it continues to happen. You're just so thoroughly entrenched in your argument that you are refusing to believe what is being presented to you.
Refuses to post articles to back up ascertains. Refuses to believe articles from any site not deemed credible enough (even if there are links back to source articles). Refuses to read articles. Claims gaslighting when presented with evidence that what they saw may have been factually different than what they believe.
This is pretty much every experience I've ever had with a bernie-bro right here. All I need is a few tears and being called mean and it would fill up my bingo card.
YUP. I truly do appreciate johncandy hanging around, though. I mean this thread turned into a live-action example of how to handle a BSsupporter, &, thus: served as a GoTo reference resource should anyone experience in the future. Think of bookmarking, guys!
I will say if there’s one thing my job is good for it’s practice going 10 rounds with people who are operating in a world where facts don’t matter...
YUP. I truly do appreciate johncandy hanging around, though. I mean this thread turned into a live-action example of how to handle a BSsupporter, &, thus: served as a GoTo reference resource should anyone experience in the future. Think of bookmarking, guys!
Hmmm. I've really been making an effort to be polite. I have to be "handled"?
NO- I agree: you’ve been remarkably polite & I was attempting to thank you, sorry it didn’t come out that way. My verbiage wasn’t great, & I apologize: I was simply trying to comment on this exchange offering an example in how to interact in future conversations by providing direct sources, quotes, & figures. If that doesn’t prove the point than a shrug with Agree to Disagree sort of how this exchange is ending up 🤷🏼♀️ I’ve personally experienced the disappointment of being unconvincing despite providing facts, & think that this exchange sort of turned that direction, too. So I was referencing it as an example to which others can refer, so instead of feeling utter discouragement- just understanding that sometimes facts don’t stand for some (I wish there was a better way of phrasing it, sorry; it’s been a day. I truly appreciate your politeness & continued participation & was fumbling trying to explain that.)
The heavy.com article also reports what Facebook said, and is an earlier article before the final statement was released. However, it does say this: However, there’s no proof of any connection between that PAC and this attack, and definitely no proof of any connection between the PACs and the pornography posts, which were likely from unrelated trolls and spammers.
Also, the Russian thing isn't a conspiracy. It has been thoroughly examined by several government agencies and service providers. It happened, and it continues to happen. You're just so thoroughly entrenched in your argument that you are refusing to believe what is being presented to you.
Again, I am not suggesting that it was related to a super PAC. So, I'm not sure what your point is?
Also again, you have not presented any evidence to indicate Russian bots were involved with this incident.
Hmmm. I've really been making an effort to be polite. I have to be "handled"?
NO- I agree: you’ve been remarkably polite & I was attempting to thank you, sorry it didn’t come out that way. My verbiage wasn’t great, & I apologize: I was simply trying to comment on this exchange offering an example in how to interact in future conversations by providing direct sources, quotes, & figures. If that doesn’t prove the point than a shrug with Agree to Disagree sort of how this exchange is ending up 🤷🏼♀️ I’ve personally experienced the disappointment of being unconvincing despite providing facts, & think that this exchange sort of turned that direction, too. So I was referencing it as an example to which others can refer, so instead of feeling utter discouragement- just understanding that sometimes facts don’t stand for some (I wish there was a better way of phrasing it, sorry; it’s been a day. I truly appreciate your politeness & continued participation & was fumbling trying to explain that.)
The heavy.com article also reports what Facebook said, and is an earlier article before the final statement was released. However, it does say this: However, there’s no proof of any connection between that PAC and this attack, and definitely no proof of any connection between the PACs and the pornography posts, which were likely from unrelated trolls and spammers.
Also, the Russian thing isn't a conspiracy. It has been thoroughly examined by several government agencies and service providers. It happened, and it continues to happen. You're just so thoroughly entrenched in your argument that you are refusing to believe what is being presented to you.
Again, I am not suggesting that it was related to a super PAC. So, I'm not sure what your point is?
Also again, you have not presented any evidence to indicate Russian bots were involved with this incident.
Because this case was clearly caused by Facebook. LOL! Once I actually looked into it, it was obvious what happened. As for the actual pornography being posted, that could have been the Russians.
Again, I am not suggesting that it was related to a super PAC. So, I'm not sure what your point is?
Also again, you have not presented any evidence to indicate Russian bots were involved with this incident.
Because this case was clearly caused by Facebook. LOL! Once I actually looked into it, it was obvious what happened. As for the actual pornography being posted, that could have been the Russians.
"Could have been". But again, how is this not a conspiracy theory? It's not that important, but I'm getting dragged for suggesting it and I don't get it. You're theorizing that the porn was posted by Russian bots.
It's neither a theory or a conspiracy. It's a fact.
I have seen zero evidence to suggest that this particular incident being discussed is the result of Russian bots. So yes, it is a theory. About a group of people conspiring to do a nefarious thing.
Because this case was clearly caused by Facebook. LOL! Once I actually looked into it, it was obvious what happened. As for the actual pornography being posted, that could have been the Russians.
"Could have been". But again, how is this not a conspiracy theory? It's not that important, but I'm getting dragged for suggesting it and I don't get it. You're theorizing that the porn was posted by Russian bots.
If she can’t theorize about Russian bots, you can’t theorize about HRC’s campaign.
"Could have been". But again, how is this not a conspiracy theory? It's not that important, but I'm getting dragged for suggesting it and I don't get it. You're theorizing that the porn was posted by Russian bots.
If she can’t theorize about Russian bots, you can’t theorize about HRC’s campaign.
I haven't in the least suggested Hillary's campaign played a role in it! But yes, she can theorize about it. I was told that my position on what took place is a conspiracy theory. I responded by saying the idea of Russian bots being involved was *also* a conspiracy theory. That's it. And I'm being mocked and told I have no regard for facts.