undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdoktrin9y ago0 comments

> poorly documented

Uh huh

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

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

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/st-petersburg-troll-factory-...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-...

https://www.inopressa.ru/article/03Jun2014/buzzfeed/web_rus....

https://globalvoices.org/2015/04/02/analyzing-kremlin-twitte...

> if you already wrote off anyone who disagrees as "delusional or paid shills" then you're too far gone to reason with. Literally nothing anybody ever says can make you think twice.

Not true, but it would definitely take more than that hand-wavy uncertainty yarn you're trying to spin

0 comments

zigzigzag9y ago

Both the NY Times and the Guardian seem to hate Russia and all things Russian. I constantly read things in those publications that are ludicrously biased or simply wrong. They don't count as credible sources to me anymore.

And as was already pointed out, you stated that "Russia sponsors" but even the first article states that the alleged project is the work of one guy who apparently has money to burn - not the government.

seppin9y ago

I honestly think HN is the target of some of these trolls as well.

mistermann9y ago

A significant percentage of younger (as well as non-younger for that matter) people have practically no exposure to mainstream media, so naturally one should expect propaganda (from the various players) will be brought to online forums of all kinds.

seppin9y ago

I feel HN has been specifically targeted as a source of above-average discourse, therefore it must be comprised.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

zigzigzag9y ago

seppin9y ago

I honestly think HN is the target of some of these trolls as well.

mistermann9y ago

seppin9y ago

I feel HN has been specifically targeted as a source of above-average discourse, therefore it must be comprised.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse