Russia 'meddled in all big social media' in US election, says report

[apdst]

I thought Michael Cohen was the worst lawyer in the US;
[USC03] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals


Ҥ30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.”


You need “foreign” defined as well?

You're so far off topic, you're on a different planet. :lamo

 

[eohrnberger]

They are privately owned. You lot love them because they got your boy elected, but, you hate them now that they have decided to silence lies and bull**** like that retard on Infowars.

Well. Not so much.

Nate Silver‏ Verified account @NateSilver538

@NateSilver538​

If you wrote out a list of the most important factors in the 2016 election, I'm not sure that Russian social media memes would be among the top 100. The scale was quite small and there's not much evidence that they were effective.
[FONT=&quot]8:08 PM - 17 Dec 2018[/FONT]
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1074833714931224582

Nate Silver ‏Verified account @NateSilver538

@NateSilver538​

What fraction of overall social media impressions on the 2016 election were generated by Russian troll farms? 0.1%? I'm not sure what the answer is, but suspect it's low, and it says something that none of the reports that hype up the importance of them address that question.
9:08 PM - 17 Dec 2018
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1074848968188796930

The Democrats who are blaming Russians on social media as the cause of Hillary's loss are pissing into the wind, and they probably know it, except for the most uncritical and illogical minds (hyper-partisans).

More concerning is that the Democrats are setting up for the play that the government under their control can regulate, or at least influence, the social media platforms' algorithms, under threat of regulations they so dearly love (remember the fairness doctrine?), so they get the biased results form the social that they want, so going to do exactly what they are falsely are accusing the Russians of having done.

 

[AncientGeek]

Wait, so Uranium one is a meme of Russian trolls? You mean that sale never happened?

No. I mean Hilary Clinton did not sell uranium. Uranium One was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. i.e.:
- Department of State (Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez represented the State Dept.)
- Department of Treasury
- Department of Justice
- Department of Energy
- Department of Defense
- Department of Commerce
- Homeland Security
- Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

all of which had to approve the deal.

 

[AncientGeek]

Cite the law

The relevant law is the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which was first enacted in 1966 and initially aimed to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a number of limitations on foreign individuals. In 1974, the prohibitions were incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
FECA prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

 

[AncientGeek]

The 1st Amendment protects all free speech in The United States, regardless of the person's citizenship status.

No, a foreign national does not have Constitutional rights.
However, a foreign national has rights to judicial process as determined by the various courts for which he is that do not conflict with the Constitution.
There are some who state that the wording of the Fifth Amendment (to “people” rather than to “citizens”) makes it applicable to ANYONE. However, the Constitution was originally enacted without reference to amendments. The framers intended this to apply to the people of the United States — even extending the right to Congress to create laws governing naturalization (Art. 1, Section 8, clause 4).
It is important to note that the courts and law enforcement operate under the assumption that someone who is detained is a citizen or legal resident. However, if the courts determine that a person is not a legal resident or is a foreign national, then there is a slightly different manner by which their “rights” would be extended. They can be tried under U.S. laws and even have right afforded to them by such laws. However, they do not have Constitutional rights that belong solely to “we the people of the United States of America.”
A foreigner doesn’t have other rights in the Constitution. A foreigner cannot own a firearm. A foreigner cannot vote. A foreigner cannot exert a Fifth Amendment “right.”

- Chris Murphy, Education: Political Science, Computer Science, Public Policy and History.

 

[j-mac]

No. I mean Hilary Clinton did not sell uranium. Uranium One was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. i.e.:
- Department of State (Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez represented the State Dept.)
- Department of Treasury
- Department of Justice
- Department of Energy
- Department of Defense
- Department of Commerce
- Homeland Security
- Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

all of which had to approve the deal.

"They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill."

https://thehill.com/policy/national...sian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

Oh yeah, tell me more....:roll:

 

[Rickeroo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46590890

Russia allegedly used every major social media platform to influence the 2016 US election, a report claims.

Research is expected to say YouTube, Tumblr, Instagram and PayPal - as well as Facebook and Twitter - were leveraged to spread propaganda.
=====================================
The 2 reports to be published this week paint a dark picture of a highly organized & skilled effort by Russian military intelligence to influence the 2016 in Trump's favor. With the narrow margin of his victory, the Russian effort paid off apparently. Putin got what he wanted: chaos & discord in the U.S. government.

'Its authors criticise the "belated and uncoordinated response" by tech firms.' Social media was successfully weaponized by the Russians.

The most important element in these reports is that the Russian effort is continuing with an apparent objective of influencing the 2020 election in Trump's favor.

I think most of the outrage here about Russians, Trump and social media is that social media is supposed to be a liberal outlet. There's a betrayal we are supposed to feel when social media is used to promote conservative ideas.

 

[Thoreau72]

Things posted on those platforms are not isolated there. They become the café talk from friends that people buy into.

Blatant evidence of the success of Russian troll memes is the number of people on DP who believe Hilary sold uranium to Russia.

I have no opinion on the uranium thing, but I would not put anything past HRC or Putin. When everything the American people believe is false, it will be 2018.