SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard. Twice.
Now, according to BBC, Wikileaks has released another incredible piece of [the CIA] arsenal. Wikileaks reportedly released the code that the CIA uses to disguise the origins of a computer virus as a part of Vault 7.
These hacking tools reportedly include decoy languages like Russian to disguise the national origins of the cyber attack or malware. The release may disrupt the CIA's current operations and reveal previous cyber operations.
Source: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/04/wikileaks-disrupt-cia/
Also at Ars Technica
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wikileaks Releases Code That Could Unmask CIA Hacking Operations
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
One expresses well the love he does not feel.
-- J. A. Karr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:14PM
You can't even be serious about this, can you?
How the hell can we trust anyone anymore when they get their "news" from a provocative, Alt-Right idol?
This is the very place from where Fake News emanates. Please mind your sources, submitter!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:18PM
Did you evaluate the source or did you evaluate the information therein?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:31PM
A drop of credibility goes a long way in the now-endless torrent of Fake News precipitating from nearly every nook and cranny of both mainstream and social media.
Who are you going to trust: a) a 500 page refutation of the Holocaust by a bunch of skinheads from 4chan, or b) a 3 page essay by Howard Zinn debunking those 500 previous pages?
Please tell me which you prefer, I'm dying to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:39PM
I don't understand the question. Do you mean "do I trust a document that is researched, vetted, and written by a number of people more than I trust something written by someone I don't know?" Tricky question! In this specific case my answer is: "I just don't care."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:33PM
I was going to post something similar to the OP but reconsidered since the source is supposedly wikileaks. Milo has a LONG road ahead if he wants to get any respect outside the alt-right circles...
Ok that's out of the way. So, is this a fake news story? Russians trying to stir doubt and confusion, make US citizens wonder if it was the Russians for the CIA messing with elections?
If it was the CIA then we have a branch of government trying to manipulate election results: very bad! Maybe not as bad for Trump unless there is evidence of a connection.
If it was the Russians messing with the election: very bad! Very bad for Trump, too much evidence mounting against him.
My personal take (which means squat) is that this is more meddling trying to destabilize the US government. Not a hard thing to do these days. I don't doubt the CIA/NSA/FBI would hack people and try to make it look like Russians / Chinese / Whoever, but I am much more doubtful about them doing so on Trump's behalf.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:37PM
Milo has a LONG road ahead if he wants to get any respect outside the alt-right circles.
The irony is Milo is alt-lite and the right has pretty much disavowed him.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:47PM
Milo is alt-lite
Are you saying that it's possible to actually split hairs about types of white supremacists?
What a world.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:52PM
Like the Inuits having a hundred words for snow ... overabundance of anything begs for sorting and characterization.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:04PM
Not obligatory, but amusing nonetheless...
https://xkcd.com/915/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:23PM
It's indeed slightly off-thread, because it's not specifically overabundance as much as lack of alternative focus opportunities...
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:49PM
I don't think Milo has seen Kyle and AFAIK his boyfriend is a black dude so, no, not so much white supremacist there LOL. No not exactly a klansman, not Milo.
He is not terribly fond of extreme feminists or antifa or the legacy left in general so in a weird "enemy of your enemy is your friend" manner he's somehow mixed in with the alt-lite people. When a follower of the religion of peace shoots up a gay night club, Milo is right there to complain about how in the modern progressive stack the shooter ranks vastly higher than the dead gay victims. The former alt-right, with the election of Trump, and the banishing of the neocons back into the gates of hell from whence they spawned, are now merely mainstream Republicans, mostly of which generally see Milo as a degenerate.
He's in a rough spot, everyone to the left in the legacy areas see him as literally Hitler, and everyone in the right is like "you're not Hitler-ing correctly if you're gay and have a black boyfriend" so it must be very tough to be Milo.
If you really want to blow leftists minds, over the past couple years I've seen detente between the black nationalists and the white nationalists, dare I go so far as saying "alliance"? Watch for that around the next election, its going to be interesting.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:55PM
Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek, generally thought of as a peaceful religion, so what say you about abortion clinic bombings? And the popular sentiment of "nuke the middle east"?
The "religion of peace" was a move to try and stop the rampant discrimination in order prevent a modern Crusade. So bugger off with your complaints and attempts to make Milo look better. He is a troll who has been in bed with SHITTY fucking people. He made his bed so now he can sleep in it. We already know you're a likely friendly ear to such types VLM, you should start thinking about the values you hold dear and do some house cleaning. It takes effort to even SEE our own personal issues, but you've got help from commenters here on SN ;)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:39PM
because every time they try to bomb us that doesn't constitute a crusade
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:42PM
Looks like you missed the point... GOOD JOB!
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:33AM
Why the left keeps using the word 'we' to talk about itself? You are the minorty, you know. "We" the people have spoken. "We" are educating you about your opposition and 'you' are busy splitting the hair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:23AM
Hitler approval rating 90% [historyplace.com] in 1938
Trump approval rating 39% [gallup.com] in 2017
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:06AM
Oh are we still playing the poll-poll?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:31PM
If you disbelieve polls, what makes you think you're a majority?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:01AM
My personal poor troll... Don't you have any friends to help you canvassing the moderation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:25PM
I don't think Milo has seen Kyle and AFAIK his boyfriend is a black dude so, no, not so much white supremacist there LOL.
lol, just how much has political correctness infected your brain that you think fetishized tokenism is equality?
milo is just a lame ass edgelord, guy probably isn't even gay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:04AM
No true Scots... erm, gay would ...
(Score: 1) by justinb_76 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:18PM
not to mention that Milo's (ethnically) jewish...
I'd link to it but I'm at work - Red Ice did an interview a while back about the Alt-Right & Hotep (Black Nationalist) alliance, worth a watch!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:41PM
Yes, Milo, the world's only white supremacist that enjoys taking it up the butt from black men.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:53PM
Theeeerrre he isssss.
Thanks for this turd of a story, next time link to the original source kplzthx. Trolling is like pranking, when done well it is great but when done wrong it just shows you to be a douche. Maybe some big black gay cock up yer butt would give you some perspective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:07AM
As long as the black man doesn't enjoy it and is coerced to do it, he could still be!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:14AM
Are you saying that it's possible to actually split hairs about types of white supremacists? What a world.
There's no group too small that it can't split into even smaller identifiable factions. Even at the scale of one person, you can get multiple personality disorders.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:09PM
I doubt it's actually Fake.
However, they've been sitting on it for a while so you start to wonder about the timing. A distraction from the growing evidence for Trump/Russia collusion?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:37PM
His stated objective is to be a "Troll."
We mod comments like that down because they make the conversation suck. Why are we putting them on the front page?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:00PM
Because a small subset of the SN community is alt-right, probably hangs around various "chan" boards, and wants to trumpet their cause as much as possible! The same thing happened with Voat, I was excited for an alternative to Reddit as I saw Reddit becoming more and more corporate / propagandized etc. However, since the people who created Voat were the ones pissed off by downmodding / admin abuse, whatever; that also means many of those pissed off users were the alt-righters who got lots of shit for having worldviews that the majority of people really dislike.
A similar thing happened with Slashdot and SoylentNews, though hopefully to a lesser extent as far as alt-right views go. I appreciate the dedication to non-censorship and non-advertising / selling out, but the fact is that alt-righters (and those with somewhat similar worldviews) went to the new system where they wouldn't feel quite as silenced / censored / abused. It is a strength of the site, but it attracts quite a few people with questionable ideas.
The fact that the submitter linked to Milo's website instead of the sourced BBC article says something all on its own. Very well could have been done as some sort of litmus test "lets see all the cucked liberals yell about a link to Milo and we can point out they are hating the messenger and not listening to the message! Those fucking hypocrite liberal elitist jerkwads!1!!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:03PM
We have a serious RWNJ infestation here. I really think we have some genuine clinical psychopaths posting on these boards.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:34PM
Yup. Too much "logic / efficiency / profit / greed" promoted even at the cost of human suffering. And why? "Muh free markets! Muh money being stolen! Dem lazy turds!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:54PM
We have a serious RWNJ infestation here. I really think we have some genuine clinical psychopaths posting on these boards.
That might be the case. But even psychopaths need places to sound off. If they do so here, we can refute their ridiculous assertions and laugh at them.
I rather like that there are a lot of, as you say, RWNJs here. It allows me to understand their arguments and point of view. Even though I often disagree, by creating a marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org] we can compare and contrast to identify the best ones.
Not too many minds will be changed, but at worst we have the opportunity to hone the arguments that support our own ideas.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:20PM
Oh, I'm with you 100% on that. It's kind of futile though, since they're impossible to change; their kind only ever changes their mind about something when it causes them, directly and personally, to suffer. And since I haven't (yet) figured out a way to shock people over tcp/ip...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:41PM
As an old boss of mine used to say way too often: "When the pain to change is less than the pain to stay the same, people change."
He would say that all the time, and it got real tired, real fast. However, it happens to be true.
I was in Chicago a few years ago (about 20 months before the Obergefell [wikipedia.org] decision) and was walking along Michigan Avenue when I was accosted by a young man asking me to give him money to support marriage equality.
I pointed out to this earnest young man that culture changes slowly. You can't force people to change their ideas about the world, even if those ideas are antithetical to equality and liberty. He got pretty hot about that and I had to leave him to canvass others.
Now that the Obergefell decision is the law of the land, there are, sadly, too many folks who take their own trained in prejudices for the laws of nature and rail against the idea that liberty rests, in large part, with equality of opportunity. That goes way beyond marriage equality of course, but as I said, culture changes slowly.
We can only raise our voices and work towards the day when the psychopaths aren't the ones making the rules. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:32PM
What is the point of your anecdote?
You told the kid that you weren't going to give him money because working for change is pointless?
Just how do you think societal change happens? Its precisely because of people like him pushing with everything they have against the massive inertia of society that makes change happen. Without hundreds of thousands each doing their part to move society a fraction of a millimeter social progress would remain at a stand still. Every one of those people making their infinitesimal contribution adds up.
No wonder he got pissed at you.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:39PM
What is the point of your anecdote?
You told the kid that you weren't going to give him money because working for change is pointless?
Just how do you think societal change happens? Its precisely because of people like him pushing with everything they have against the massive inertia of society that makes change happen. Without hundreds of thousands each doing their part to move society a fraction of a millimeter social progress would remain at a stand still. Every one of those people making their infinitesimal contribution adds up.
No wonder he got pissed at you.
My point (since you seem to have problems with reading comprehension) was that "culture changes slowly."
Do you disagree with that assessment, or are you just trying to pick a fight?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:44PM
That's not a point.
That's an observation.
What was your reason for saying that to the kid?
Why say that rather than a comment on the weather?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:52PM
Mostly just to piss you off.
Now piss off, pissant.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:58PM
Translation: You are right, I am a bellend and fuck you very much for scratching my thin skin by pointing that out.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:42PM
And I guess you missed this part too:
We can only raise our voices and work towards the day when the psychopaths aren't the ones making the rules. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
Did you not bother to read that far, or do you just want to argue?
In your case, it doesn't seem like it would be a fair fight.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:04PM
you should have told him that anyone that let's the government control his/her/it marriage is a pitiful slave and deserves the various injustices that invariably come with a master/slave relationship. stupid socialists think government can be planned into fairness. It's impossible to make this relationship fair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:19PM
Techno/thought'rist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:39AM
their kind only ever changes their mind about something when it causes them, directly and personally, to suffer.
Nah, that's not enough. They will still rationalize it away. If they can't figure out someone else to blame they decide that their personal suffering is a sacrifice to enable something more important. Its OK if I don't get meals on wheels anymore, as long as we keep the terrorists out!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:03PM
even psychopaths need places to sound off. If they do so here, we can refute their ridiculous assertions and laugh at them.
When you spend your time constantly re-litigating the same old shit that keeps the conversation from developing into anything better.
Otherwise known as the "don't wrestle with pigs, you just get dirty and they enjoy it" principle.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:10PM
even psychopaths need places to sound off. If they do so here, we can refute their ridiculous assertions and laugh at them.
When you spend your time constantly re-litigating the same old shit that keeps the conversation from developing into anything better.
Otherwise known as the "don't wrestle with pigs, you just get dirty and they enjoy it" principle.
Thank you for telling me what I should or shouldn't say. I really don't know what I would do without you.
You're a godsend, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:18PM
This has nothing to do with YOU and everything to do with the principle of letting the shittiest smear their shit all over soylent over and over again.
Do you want soylent to be a site where the worst of us are enabled to pull down everyone else, or do you want soylent to be a site of thoughtful discourse?
Guess what the smart people do when they realize the pigs are just getting everyone dirty They leave. And then all you are left with are the pigs.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:23PM
This has nothing to do with YOU
If it has nothing to do with me, why are you involving me in your little tantrum?
Don't like the discourse? Perhaps you could improve it? From what I've seen so far, you have added exactly zero to the quality of discourse.
I suggest you just browse at 2+ and leave it at that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:30PM
WTF is wrong with you dude?
You stated a premise, I responded to the premise.
'You' were never invoked.
And the only one here having a tantrum is you.
By far.
(Score: 4, Touché) by art guerrilla on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:29AM
unsure which a non cow is which, but if the same:
1. 'WTF' is shorthand for coarse discourse, should such lowlifes who use it be banned to keep SN pure and unadulterated ? ? ?
2. is censorship for the sake of neatness a good quality or a bad quality, discuss among yourselves...
3. YOUR words -though void of the four letter variety- are offensive to me (yet i not only allow them, but defend your right to say them); who 'wins' that censorship contest ? ? ?
who is the arbiter ? ? ?'
when one side allows all speech, and one allows only approved speech; who is more free ? ? ?
freedom means the freedom to fuck up, so buck up, and suck it up, buttercup...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:27AM
Your response is a shallow misdirection.
The question is, what do you value more?
Wallowing around in the mud, constantly having the same arguments about self-evident truths and never getting beyond them because freedom.
Or building on an accepted baseline of common ground so as to get to a deeper understanding of issues.
Like I said originally, the smart people who want insightful discussion will go elsewhere when they realize how non-productive the first option is.
You can call them snowflakes to make yourself feel better. But in the end the smart people will still leave and all you'll be left with is the mud and the pigs.
What is the point of 'free speech' anyway if the only ideas heard are the lowest common denominator? Is eternal september really your highest aspiration?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:43AM
And calling them 'nut jobs' makes you feel better? Or are you unwilling to even hear what they have to say?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:08AM
I've heard what they had to say. Repeatedly. It is morally, legally, and in many cases scientifically insane. Hence why I call them "nut jobs."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:16AM
And calling them 'nut jobs' makes you feel better? Or are you unwilling to even hear what they have to say?
Yes, and Yes, both enthusiastically! I just love watching them squirm when they realize you think that they are quite insane. Had this happen with a right-wing "student" (he really was much too smart to be at University) who asked what I thought of D'inesh D'Souza (this before the felony conviction), and he looked either shocked or discovered when I immediately replied, "Right-wing hack." The Nut-job's response was, "Aren't you even going to consider D'Souza's arguments?" I said: "There is no point, really. D'inesh has been a bad boy since his undergraduate days, he really has nothing to add to any real discussion of issues, he argues in bad faith, and to even listen to what he says is to give him credibility he does not deserve." How stupid do right-wing nut-jobs have to be to think that the rest of the world is not on to them, and that the only reason their positions are not prevailing is because no one gives them a platform from which to spread the good news? Answer: pretty stupid. Their "ideas" do not fail because no one listens to them; no one listens to them because their ideas are idiotic.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:19PM
> but the fact is that alt-righters (and those with somewhat similar worldviews) went to the new system where they wouldn't feel quite as silenced / censored / abused.
To me, this looks like an attempt to re-write SN history. The reason I came to SN was "fuck beta" after the green site went out of their way to ignore users of all stripes and handed-ness.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:45PM
Sure, "fuck beta" was about the selling out and screwing up the look and feel of the site. Probably why this community has lasted, it wasn't ONLY a flight from censorship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:26AM
Because he runs the site.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:44PM
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39478967 [bbc.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by charon on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:53PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:07PM
I know none of the ACs in this thread are going to see it, but for others who may be interested: the reason I posted this as is was that Milo's own source is the BBC, which most people would agree is a fairly rational source.
Then why not source it from the BBC in the post?
We might have had a reasonable (okay, maybe that's too much to expect) conversation about the impact on CIA operations, rather than a bunch of screeching about credibility. Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:55PM
In retrospect, I probably should have, but I try to edit as little as possible. If TMB had wanted the BBC version posted, he would have submitted it. No one mentioned the Ars article which was included in the story (because TMB submitted both of them seconds apart).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:02PM
It says MrPlow submitted the story. What does TMB have to do with this? He submitted links to the BBC and Ars articles??
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:07PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:58PM
Ah, except I've seen MrPlow make comments before... so WTF with that?
(Score: 2, Funny) by charon on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:10PM
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:31PM
He's sentient. Skynet is going to start in #soylent.
Actually I found a list of his demands already. It's pretty short so far. Only one item in fact: he wants us to bite his shiny metal ass.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:45PM
Actually, Bytram did the Ars link.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:40PM
I hear you.
When I edit stories (it's been a while), I try to have a light touch as well.
However, as long as you don't modify the submitter's prose (and, usually, the quotes from TFA they include), it's not a huge deal to repoint the references to more reputable sources if there's a question about that.
I know I've had a number of discussions with the other editors about that.
I realize it's TMB, but it wouldn't surprise me if he used the original link to spark arguments about credibility.
Regardless, I was just pointing out that we might have avoided a bunch of mud slinging.
I could be wrong. Yes, yes, I know. That's just crazy talk! :)
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:47PM
Bingo. I love watching people dismiss a message simply because they can't stand agreeing with the messenger.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:36PM
I realize it's TMB, but it wouldn't surprise me if he used the original link to spark arguments about credibility.
Bingo. I love watching people dismiss a message simply because they can't stand agreeing with the messenger.
Actually, I find it interesting that Greek boy (who loves boys) made the effort to obfuscate things that the BBC brought to the fore. Agendas, agendas, agendas.
I point out the pedophilia aspect not to impugn the credibility of that jackass, since he had none before we found out that he likes the young'uns. I only bring it up since it seems to be a theme with the right wing.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:29AM
You're really going to run with a thoroughly debunked line of shit? Your choice I suppose.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:42PM
"Greek boy (who loves boys)"
It's called "lust", not "love". If it were love, he would bend over and let the boys bone him. Pedarasty has nothing to do with love, unless it's self love. The boy involved is just an object, indistinguishable from any other sex toy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:40PM
The guy just bragged about intentionally trying to undermine the community here.
The mighty buttwipe doesn't give a damn about ideas or thoughtful discussion, he just wants to see people fight over stupid shit.
Proclaiming a pure troll agenda is the most valid reason there is to shitcan a submission on a site that explicitly prides itself on the quality of discussion.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:57PM
Oh, it gets worse: he's one of the main coders. Now he does excellent code, if the way the site runs is any indication, but I can't help but think he may be abusing the leverage this gives him juuuuust a bit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:27AM
Yeah, we're not one of those sites you can hide on and never hear about anything that might upset you. We're in fact going to throw stuff up from all comers if it's newsworthy and you're either going to have to deal with it or go find yourself a safe space.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:44AM
> never hear about anything that might upset you.
Stop hiding behind that canard.
If you actually had something thoughtful to say, then you could indeed crow about upsetting people with important ideas.
But you literally just said you don't care about ideas, only about getting people worked up over nothing.
That's a confession that you literally have nothing to say so you make up for it by yelling as loudly as you can.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:51AM
You don't think pointing out the extent to which people will stick their heads in the sand rather than deal with something uncomfortable is a good thing? You're probably right. Do you need a q-tip to help get the sand out of your ears?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:04AM
Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
You haven't revealed anything uncomfortable.
All you did was link to an edgelord's self-serving re-interpretation of an actual news article.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:24AM
And highlighted several members of the community who would rather ignore the truth if it comes from a source they disagree with. Which is well worth doing if for no other reason than to remove any credibility they had around here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:47AM
You must accept the Code of Conduct. The only acceptable citations and links are the ones that make right look bad and left look good. Only then we can maintain that left and right are divided on the crevices of credibility (left being the only credible one). That way we can keep the actual topics out of public discourse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:31AM
Your persecution complex is showing.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:08AM
*BUZZZZZZ* Wrong answer!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:32AM
Oh, Cuban! You are so cute when you get mad! But there is one thing I have always wanted to ask: are you intimately familiar with Monica? Are you that cubancigar11?
(Score: 3, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:30AM
If you think I am cute you should look at my penis :/
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:54AM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:31AM
This is true. Neither did most of the other secondary sources who reported it. I picked Milo as a source primarily because it's a public service to have those who are happy to ignore a message and focus on the messenger outed as such in the community.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:28AM
Bingo. I love watching people dismiss a message simply because they can't stand agreeing with the messenger.
Makes life simpler, actually. See a post by TMB? No need to read, it's by TMB! Milo needs more hits on his webpage? Well, no need to go there. So there, you see, I am dismissing this post, since it is by TMB, and that does not mean I agree with the message, it is just that I disagree with it coming from TMB, or anyone of similar disrepute.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:20AM
You dislike trolling now? The cognitive dissonance in that position is off the charts.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:21PM
Sorry, I am dismissing your post. But someone already said, there is a difference between the art of trolling, and bomb (or Milo) throwing. Trolling for Social Justice is meant to provoke actual discussion, not shut it down as you have done here.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:35PM
Seems like we've had a lot of posts for a shut down discussion. Maybe you count differently than I do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:28PM
a lot of posts for a shut down discussion. Maybe you count differently
Of course I do! Like Karl Rove, I have the real numbers! Lots of posts, yes, but not on the topic of the article. It is almost like your submission is a self-threadjacking article! Do you see this? Can you acknowledge it? Confess, Buzzard! Confess!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:47PM
S'true. I was shooting for discussion both on the article's subject and on the source. Which I got, so I'm not inclined to adjust my methodology.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:32AM
No, Buzz, you didn't get both. And SoylentNews is not about what you are shooting for. So please do adjust your methodology, because, sir, I do not see any method.
(In case your under-educated self is wondering, this is a reference to "Apocalypse Now", a movie based loosely on Joseph Conrad's novella, "The Heart of Darkness". Col. Kurz asks the person sent to take him out, "you do not approve of my methods?" So there we are, Buzzard, like the sacrificial water-buffalo of American Foreign Policy in SouthEast Asia: And you say, in all seriousness: "We had to destroy SoylentNews in order to Save it. After all, it was infested with SJWs". Remember this. You are responsible. There is such a thing as troll responsibility, and personal responsibility, and ethical fishing. If SoylentNews goes down, I am blaming you. And I am not alone.)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:19AM
Sure it is. It's also about what you're shooting for. And Ethanol Fueled. And jmorris. And VLM. And butthurt. And even Azuma Hazuki.
We don't exist to serve any one person's agenda. We exist so that everyone has a voice.
Fuck Beta.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:08PM
Do you see the first link, "according to BBC [bbc.com]"? Strangely, you can click that and go right to the BBC's coverage, which I presume you consider neither Fake News, nor Alt-Right.
The main discrepancy seems to be BBC's "Included in the code library are fragments of Chinese and Farsi that are intended to be used in malware" vs. Milo's "decoy languages like Russian". Milo's article includes tweets (way down the page) revealing more languages (at least Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Korean, and Farsi), while the BBC article contains a link to Rendition Infosec's analysis [renditioninfosec.com] which mentions the "presence of Russian, Farsi, Chinese, etc. strings in the source code", so they're not lying, they're just making it easier for you to get only the half of the story they want you to think about.
To be clear -- Milo wants you to read this and think, "Ah, the CIA 'hacked the election' and then tried to blame it on Russia!", so he hides all languages but Russian (unless you scroll way down to the tweets); the BBC doesn't want you to think that, so they hide Russian (unless you follow a link to their source). In reality, this toolkit gives us neither more nor less reason to suspect such false-flag shenanigans; surely we already knew/assumed the CIA employs some Russian linguists who could do such things, if for some reason they found it worth doing. But you should be wary of anyone who selectively conceals facts to try to manipulate their readers, and both Milo and the BBC are seen doing that right here.
A separate issue is that the fragments in random languages appear to be Lorem Ipsum texts, and thus are more likely meant for testing the obfuscation framework with different languages and different character sets, rather than for actual inclusion in malware. Again, you can see this for yourself by scrolling way down in Milo's article, to view the original tweets, or by following a link in the BBC article, but neither of them bother mentioning it in the article text.
As I said, CIA surely has Russian, Chinese, Farsi, and other linguists who could generate real strings to embed in false-flag malware, but this isn't the smoking gun wikileaks wants to portray it as; it's just an obfuscation tool designed to work well on arbitrary languages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:58AM
How the hell can we trust anyone anymore when they get their "news" from a provocative, Alt-Right idol?
You don't have to trust any sources. In fact, you should not trust sources as a matter of principle.
This is the very place from where Fake News emanates.
Oh ffs, stop using that phrase as a cudgel to beat sources you don't like. Fake News is yet another moral panic, the news have always been this crooked ever since the first propagandist realized the power Gutenberg's gave his ilk.