Right-wing conspiracy and fake news creator 'unmasks himself'

[roscoe]

If you are conservative and care about the truth, you might read this, because he has been trying to manipulate you for profit (and largely succeeding) :

“Hacker X”—the American who built a pro-Trump fake news empire—unmasks himself

He was hired to build a fake news op but now wants to put things right.

arstechnica.com

 

[wiscoaster]

It should be pointed out that the ultimate owners of Ars Technica, through Conde Nast and Advance Publications, the Newhouse family (Chairman Steven and President Donald), are Democrats.

 

[wiscoaster]

BTW, I've never heard of "Hacker X" and as the article reports his major comm channel was Facebook, and I'm not and have never been on FB, I really doubt this guy, if the story is true, has had any influence on me, anyway. Ho hum. Yet another right-wing conspiracy theory @roscoe needs to debunk, I suppose.

 

[roscoe]

BTW, I've never heard of "Hacker X" and as the article reports his major comm channel was Facebook, and I'm not and have never been on FB, I really doubt this guy, if the story is true, has had any influence on me, anyway. Ho hum. Yet another right-wing conspiracy theory @roscoe needs to debunk, I suppose.

No. You need to debunk this story. Show us it is not true.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

No. You need to debunk this story. Show us it is not true.

So the moral of the story is someone lied on Facebook?

 

[wiscoaster]

No. You need to debunk this story. Show us it is not true.

You're the resident conspiracy debunker. I'm the resident conspiracy ignorer. Regardless of which side it's attributed to. I just don't pay any attention, and I don't intend to pay any attention to this assertion of conspiracy. You want to give this conspiracy assertion credibility? Kind of conflicts against any other conspiracy debunking you attempt, don't you think?

 

[roscoe]

So the moral of the story is someone lied on Facebook?

The moral of the story is that people were paid a lot of money to create a large-scale disinformation campaign to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump. But true, I guess we kind of already knew that.

 

[roscoe]

You're the resident conspiracy debunker. I'm the resident conspiracy ignorer. Regardless of which side it's attributed to. I just don't pay any attention, and I don't intend to pay any attention to this assertion of conspiracy. You want to give this conspiracy assertion credibility? Kind of conflicts against any other conspiracy debunking you attempt, don't you think?

I think a first-person account of a conspiracy, with ample corroborated evidence provided, makes it at least partly credible. He didn't manipulate me, that's for sure (since I didn't vote for Trump based on kooky Clinton conspiracy theories), but he appears to have done so to a lot of people and they should be outraged. Unlikely though. It would mean admitting they were wrong, and could be manipulated.

 

[Robert]

Both sides are just as guilty when it comes to spreading disinformation and lies. No party is blameless here. That being said, never heard of the guy...

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

That being said, never heard of the guy...

Nobody has, but apparently he has influenced all of us, except for Rosco of course.

 

[roscoe]

Nobody has, but apparently he has influenced all of us, except for Rosco of course.

He was going after Republicans. I ain't one. And I don't do Facebook or Twitter or TikTok, etc.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

And I don't do Facebook or Twitter or TikTok, etc.

Neither do I

 

[wiscoaster]

Both sides are just as guilty when it comes to spreading disinformation and lies. No party is blameless here.

While I can't disagree with that I think it's quite clear which side's disinformation and lies get the widest distribution.