SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US Uncut reports:
Some of the biggest pro-Bernie Sanders groups on Facebook were briefly taken down Monday evening in a targeted attack by Hillary Clinton supporters.
The groups Bernie Sanders Activists, Bernie Believers, BERNIE OR BUST, Bernie Sanders Revolutionaries, Bay Area for Bernie, Bernie Sanders 2016 — Ideas Welcome, Bernie Sanders is my HERO, and Bernie Sanders for President 2016 were all taken down in the attack. The pages in question were reported to be down for about three hours, from 9 p.m. to midnight Monday night.
Collectively, these groups are home to more than a quarter million Bernie Sanders supporters, and some have been in existence for nearly a year, having been launched shortly after the Vermont senator declared his intent to run for president in 2015.
The groups were targeted by online trolls, who posted pornographic images and reported the groups to Facebook admins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:29PM
Is shutting them down the night before an election really going to have any appreciable effect? Most people who are going to vote have already made their choice well before then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:36PM
And as a followup from AC's comment
who posted pornographic images
So are we talking about hot images that would make me want to click there like noodz of Trump's women, or goatse type stuff? Assuming goatse wouldn't sell to Bernie supporters. He can fit a whole electronic voting machine back there. Or maybe the old internet classic "two girls one vote". Or is it Utah grade pr0n where they're showing scandalous bare ankle?
I'm calling false flag on it. It sounds juicy enough to get him some attention and pity, but as a strategy its so idiotic its gotta be a false flag. On the other hand we're talking rabid Hillary supporters, logical rational behavior might not apply...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:08PM
It was child porn, and the Hillary supporters bragged about it in pro-Hillary groups.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:14PM
Well, to post it on the site, they need to have possessed it first. I somehow feel they will soon regret it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:30PM
Oh, to be young and naive again...
(Score: 4, Funny) by ticho on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:35PM
Eh, you'd only end up with your illegal nude pics all over these groups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:57PM
> Well, to post it on the site, they need to have possessed it first. I somehow feel they will soon regret it.
Probably made it themselves. Lots of teenagers excited about politics with cell phones. Sexting is so common that I'm kinda surprised none of them have repurposed a few of their own photos for political purposes. After all, unbridled enthusiasm and poorly thought out stunts are practically the hallmark of a being a teenager.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday April 27 2016, @08:34PM
Uhh, pictures of 16-18 year old girls willingly showing their newly developed and biologically adult bodies is nowhere near the same thing as prepubescent children being abused and photographed. If it's teenage guys doing it, well, I think they're far more interested in teenage girls seeing them then adult political supporters. I don't consider such things to be actual child porn, but young adults who don't yet legally qualify as a "full" adult in the legal sense. Therefore we treat a naked picture of a 17.999 year old girl to be exactly the same as a 6 year old girl, even though in another 24 hours that same girl is now making copyrighted and protected works that she can elect to sell. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It may have been generated by teenage female supporters of Hillary as you may say (I don't see the male pictures actually happening), or it could have been some of her supporters in possession of child porn posting them. Quite frankly, I sincerely doubt that most teenage girls interested in politics are also interested in such debased tactics. From what I remember, girls were far more mature than boys. This is far more likely to have been conducted by adults (older and more bitter) that wished to, in no coincidence, to attack a group of political supporters on the eve of several important caucuses. To say that this was politically motivated teenagers is more than likely incorrect. Sounds like some adults wanted to play unfair in an election, and did exactly that.
What's good for goose is good for the gander though. I'm betting the Bernie supporters have more than enough IT going on to take out Hillary in a hot minute. That being said, I think we're above such debased tactics, and in fact, that's why were attempting to bring some sanity and integrity back into politics.
With appropriate campaign finance reforms, we could all put such nonsense to bed permanently for all sides of the political spectrum. Primarily because allowing the profits of these campaigns to enrich the media and Facebook is anathema to me. It should be a government run series of websites and media portals, that at worst, are leasing some technologies from Google/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon. Even that doesn't eliminate the possibility for corruption, but our current methodologies in fact engender it instead so anything is an improvement.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:06PM
Uhh, pictures of 16-18 year old girls willingly showing their newly developed and biologically adult bodies is nowhere near the same thing as prepubescent children being abused and photographed.
It is in the eyes of the law is all that matters in this context. Since you got that so wrong I TL;DR there rest of your rant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 27 2016, @11:13PM
No, I don't think it is all that matters. The law can be wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:16PM
> It was child porn, and the Hillary supporters bragged about it in pro-Hillary groups.
[citation needed]
Seriously. The only citation I can find is a claim that the groups were reported for containing threats of violence. [snopes.com]
Your claim does not pass the laugh test because it is the kind "bragging" that would be all over the net. Somebody would have snapped a screenshot and it would have been forwarded by every anti-hillary group on the planet, republican and bernie.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @04:37PM
This tactic has also been used against a few anarchist websites, most notably anokchan, and may actually be the work of JTRIG intelligence agents...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 27 2016, @06:07PM
False Flag or Clinton supporters, it seems to me that this tactic just hardens the resolve of the attacked group.
In the end Sanders did about as well as was predicted in the last round of primaries, so the whole thing was a pointless exercise.
The other possibility is the FB groups were taken down by FB itself as part of a criminal investigation if it was true about child porn being posted.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:41PM
Timing isn't the point, its the hypocrisy of the 'other' team that is. But then again, their leader ( which i bet directed this ) is a poster child for this.
( and no i dont support Bernie, but he has just as much right to have his fan base as anyone else and not be shut down by actions that are anti-freedom/American at their core )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:50PM
But then again, their leader ( which i bet directed this ) is a poster child for this
How much would you bet on this?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:43PM
Is shutting them down the night before an election really going to have any appreciable effect? Most people who are going to vote have already made their choice well before then.
Whether it is done on the eve of an election or not, are people really going to choose who to vote for on the basis of someone's success at hacking? Like :-
"Wow!!! Those Clinton supporters are clever!!! They can take down websites! Just goes to show what a great President Hillary Clinton will be!!"
Are people really that stupid?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday April 27 2016, @12:47PM
Sorry, I didn't RTFA properly : they did not take down a website but took over some Facebook groups. Same point though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2016, @03:58PM
To some people, a facebook page is a "website" - at least that's what my local pubs and restaurants think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:02PM
Are people really that stupid?
After the November election, look at who won, and then come back and ask that question with a straight face.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2016, @01:39PM
Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 27 2016, @02:20PM
Are people really that stupid?
Yes, yes, they are.
They'll say "that's just politics" and accept this as normal behavior, and happily vote for this underhanded, criminal woman.