Since 15 September, IFTAS has been tracking a coordinated network of accounts operating across Mastodon. These accounts are engaged in a high-volume propaganda campaign, promoting pro-Russian narra…
You presented it as proof that Russia is supporting misinformation on the left. To be that, it has to both include all three parts of the claim – that there is disinformation on the left, that Russia is covertly supporting disinformation, and that some of the disinformation on the left was supported by Russia.
If your wife sleeps around, and I engage in casual sex, it does not necessarily follow that I slept with your wife.
A common suspicion in America is that Vladimir Putin believes that Trump as POTUS is good for Russia, and that Putin interferes with US politics with a specific goal of helping Trump.
If you have some reporting that directly links Russia to left-wing disinformation I’d love to read it. But the BBC article I read after following your link didn’t have any such link.
When you make a statement it’s your responsibility to provide proof because what if you’re talking out of your ass? How would we find any proof in that scenario when it literally wouldn’t exist? How would we know if you misinterpreted a source? How would we know we misinterpreted the correct source? What if we think what you’re saying is so stupid we don’t want to waste our time looking for proof? There are a lot of reasons the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on us, which means the burden of proof should fall on the person who made the statement. They know if what they said is factual and if it’s factual they know where they found this fact and thus it would be significantly less effort for them to find and present the source.
Better. That actually supports the assertion that Russia does engage in left-targeted disinformation (in Canada, on Twitter.)
It also supports the original point you dismissed as “wrong” – of the 90 “most influential” accounts, only 9 were subjectively identified as “Canadian far left”.
Maybe you should spend more time reading the actual articles, and not just their headlines?
Feel free to read any other article that does, if you somehow have managed to avoid learning about russian influence campaigns over the last decade.
You presented it as proof that Russia is supporting misinformation on the left. To be that, it has to both include all three parts of the claim – that there is disinformation on the left, that Russia is covertly supporting disinformation, and that some of the disinformation on the left was supported by Russia.
If your wife sleeps around, and I engage in casual sex, it does not necessarily follow that I slept with your wife.
A common suspicion in America is that Vladimir Putin believes that Trump as POTUS is good for Russia, and that Putin interferes with US politics with a specific goal of helping Trump.
If you have some reporting that directly links Russia to left-wing disinformation I’d love to read it. But the BBC article I read after following your link didn’t have any such link.
This is the third time I post this paper in this thread: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207020241257635
There are plenty more. You spent more time writing your post than it takes to find them.
When you make a statement it’s your responsibility to provide proof because what if you’re talking out of your ass? How would we find any proof in that scenario when it literally wouldn’t exist? How would we know if you misinterpreted a source? How would we know we misinterpreted the correct source? What if we think what you’re saying is so stupid we don’t want to waste our time looking for proof? There are a lot of reasons the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on us, which means the burden of proof should fall on the person who made the statement. They know if what they said is factual and if it’s factual they know where they found this fact and thus it would be significantly less effort for them to find and present the source.
Better. That actually supports the assertion that Russia does engage in left-targeted disinformation (in Canada, on Twitter.)
It also supports the original point you dismissed as “wrong” – of the 90 “most influential” accounts, only 9 were subjectively identified as “Canadian far left”.
Maybe you should spend more time reading the actual articles, and not just their headlines?
Maybe someone wants you to think that Russian influence campaigns are a problem and so they feed you articles.