[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

This is definitely a better memory than remembering James Woods was in this scene.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

So you're arguing that misinformation is fair if a campaign has done anything that can be remotely described as damaging (and you refuse to say what they did that was so damaging).

How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

By including disinformation? It's a pretty basic concepts, by lying.

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

I'm not sure why so many people are reacting like this to my comments. The Republican Senate Committee was able to accept there was a Russian disinfo campaign, not sure why Lemmy thinks that's all fine and dandy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

What DNC corruption exactly are you referring to?

The corruption of the electronic was done by Russia and the RNC accepting and not reporting foreign election interference. As per:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

Could you show what specifically was fake?

I'm not an intelligence agent, so no, I can't tell you what was and wasn't faked. You would have to look into the various reports and intelligence findings yourself for that info.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

I never said anything about the technical details. I said the majority of the content was made up from information already released.

But yeah sure buddy, I'm sure the Senate Intelligence Committee got it wrong /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

Maybe do basic research before you go after someone for something they didn't discuss. That way you won't be left looking like an idiot.

There was Russian interference whether you want to believe it or not. I'll let you go back to your qanon discussion group now.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Me too, I've seen far too much gay porn just to keep using Lemmy.

[-] [email protected] 76 points 2 days ago

On Lemmy its more 75% chance it will be gay or yiff porn.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The charges against Assange were made in 2012.

view more: next ›

DarkCloud

joined 1 month ago