SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One of the more disturbing revelations to come out of the recent leaks by Edward Snowden is the fact that the the NSA and GCHQ specifically target social media and online forums using a variety of methods to sway domestic public opinion and manufacture false consensus for government actions. SN, being a relatively small and new website, probably isn't currently being targeted, but as a growing site it is almost guaranteed to be targeted at some point in the future. GCHQ programs have already been the subject of media reporting.
What methods, if any, could be deployed to spot these techniques and government agents? The tech-savvy, pro-privacy, niche that this website caters to probably makes it a particularly important potential target, and the threat will scale exponentially as SN's community expands in size and influence. I would like to see SN foster a culture of pro-active defense and vigilance. We know this sort of manipulation happens, being aware of it is the first step to neutralizing its pernicious effects. At the very least, I think we need keep the conversation going, so that it remains in the foreground of our collective consciousness.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:01PM
That's really about the only thing you can do. You HAVE to attack back. When someone like cold fjord come sin and starts with his pro-NSA crap, you have to howl him down and the community cant compromise.
Hey look, I understand that people have different political views, even if some of them are just dumb. However there should be things everyone agrees on is wrong and the current overreaching spy agencies is one of them. Go after them without compromise when they show up.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:47PM
Problem with this is that you end up shouting down people without even trying to counter their argument or insisting that they back up claims that they made with researched links, etc.
Even I, no friend of the NSA, understand there are some things they should be listening to outside of our boarders, as the law was written.
Listening to.
Listening.
Not trying to influence, obstruct, change, bait, alter or shape the conversation.
But I'm not sure I'm willing to call people out just for expressing an opinion.
---While I'm in rant mode...
The other thing hate is being accused of being on the payroll of Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, or any number of other corporations just because there was ONE thing they did right, that I liked, and I said so. Sure enough, some pimply faced kid in his mom's basement who hasn't had a job that didn't involve rolled up newspapers and a bike decides I must get paid for my opinion. I wish.
We have to avoid that, as well as all out attacks on people with different opinions.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Tuesday July 15 2014, @11:50PM
But people who can't close a html tag!!! Those clowns deserve everything you can throw at them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:06AM
Yeah! Ship 'em all back over the boarder!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:55PM
Seriously, man, my eyes are still ringing from all the shouting. :-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:44AM
attack the argument, not the person. there is absolutely no reason to throw out any kind of insults or personal attacks - none! all it does is drive people away (which some people may consider a good thing) and accomplishes nothing. that and bad moderation (using them as agree/disagree, or because they have a different political view than you) are the quickest ways to turn the site into an echo chamber. if i only wanted to read all the same crap with no differing viewpoints over and over again, i'd go to forums for Fox News or [insert liberal shill-job site here, i honestly dont know any]. i come here because of the differing viewpoints. if you resort to personal attacks in a debate, its clear that you've already lost.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:37AM
I've gotten in plenty of arguments with Cold Fjord and at first, I actually argued my points. But over time, it became so glaringly obvious he was either a paid NSA shill or a total retard (the distinction between these options is unimportant). Several times when I've had mod points, I just looked him up and downmodded his posts till I ran out of points. And I don't feel bad. Just as there _are_ stupid questions, there are stupid opinions and there are posters who are so prolific in spewing crap, it's hard to go wrong downmodding them without even reading their posts. Not many posters dip to those depths, but Cold Fjord is so consistently horrid that you have a 99.99999999999% chance of being correct modding him "troll" or "flamebait" without even reading a single letter of any of his postings.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:12PM
well, yeah, people who are demonstrably insane, like geocentrists, fine, but then who draws the line and where is it to be drawn? if we say "people who refuse to accept facts determined by science are ok to attack" then that means everyone who doesn't think AGW is real deserves to be attacked (and from their point of view, people who do think its real deserve to be attacked, since, similar to creationists and geocentrists, they believe there's a world-wide conspiracy to suppress the real facts about it). sure, paid shills shouldn't be welcomed with open arms either, but that eventually leads to what we see at slashdot, with "everyone who says even one thing favorably about a company is a shill!" which is even more destructive to the community.
attacking individuals leads to worse things. moderation is a much better approach to silencing crazy people and shills.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:53PM
And Darth Turbogeek's post has been modded Troll (current Score: 1)? About the only aggressive bit is calling out a single account but even there, other comments have backed him up.