maybe that wasn't that good of an Idea either then?
I would argue that this kind of interference is in every way problematic, especially when the outset goal is to erode trust in democratic institutions, which it is in this case.
No 'deepfake' was revealed by the russiagate stampede. What they found was that a Russian media company paid for $150,000 worth of Facebook ads pointing to NYT or WSJ or whichever American mainstream media outlet news about Hillary Clinton's laptop. Other than that there was no proof of anything but a lot of accusations.
Why are you putting that in quotes when it was a real thing that resulted in indictments against 34 people and 3 organizations and siezed tens of millions of dollars of assets? Is your argument that we shouldn't have enforced the law?
An indictment is a formal charge or accusation. You can formally accuse or charge anyone with anything. It doesn't mean that any of the charges has any merit or are proven. And normally, nothing has come out of it.
> siezed tens of millions of dollars of assets
You can seize 'assets worth millions' from anyone. That doesn't mean anything either. The US constantly keeps doing that to its competitors' companies.
All that the russiagate stampede produced was proof that a Russian media outlet paid for $150,000 worth of bad Facebook ads that pointed to actual American mainstream media news pieces about Hillary Clinton's laptop. Nothing fake, nothing illegal.
But the russiagate excuse did allow the consultants and companies that advised the Clinton campaign to create the election disaster it suffered. They weren't the reason why the campaign flopped. It was Russia. Then the same clique of consultants sank Harris campaign just last year. This time it wasn't possible to blame Russia.
This is easy, just also circulate deep fakes with ultra positive things about the good politicians, like they're the only one to ever win 4 noble prizes etc
11 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 30.4 ms ] threadAnyway, can't find anything about it so it obviously did not make enough news.
An indictment is a formal charge or accusation. You can formally accuse or charge anyone with anything. It doesn't mean that any of the charges has any merit or are proven. And normally, nothing has come out of it.
> siezed tens of millions of dollars of assets
You can seize 'assets worth millions' from anyone. That doesn't mean anything either. The US constantly keeps doing that to its competitors' companies.
All that the russiagate stampede produced was proof that a Russian media outlet paid for $150,000 worth of bad Facebook ads that pointed to actual American mainstream media news pieces about Hillary Clinton's laptop. Nothing fake, nothing illegal.
But the russiagate excuse did allow the consultants and companies that advised the Clinton campaign to create the election disaster it suffered. They weren't the reason why the campaign flopped. It was Russia. Then the same clique of consultants sank Harris campaign just last year. This time it wasn't possible to blame Russia.