NBC Publishes 200,000 Tweets Tied To Russian Trolls 270
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: NBC News is publishing its database of more than 200,000 tweets that Twitter has tied to "malicious activity" from Russia-linked accounts during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. These accounts, working in concert as part of large networks, pushed hundreds of thousands of inflammatory tweets, from fictitious tales of Democrats practicing witchcraft to hardline posts from users masquerading as Black Lives Matter activists. Investigators have traced the accounts to a Kremlin-linked propaganda outfit founded in 2013 known as the Internet Research Association (IRA). The organization has been assessed by the U.S. Intelligence Community to be part of a Russian state-run effort to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential race. And they're not done. At the request of NBC News, three sources familiar with Twitter's data systems cross-referenced the partial list of names released by Congress to create a partial database of tweets that could be recovered. You can download the streamlined spreadsheet (29 mb) with just usernames, tweet and timestamps, view the full data for ten influential accounts via Google Sheets, download tweets.csv (50 mb) and users.csv with full underlying data, and/or explore a graph database in Neo4j, whose software powered the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers investigations.
NBC News' partners at Neo4j have put together a "get started" guide to help you explore the database of Russian tweets. "To recreate a link to an individual tweet found in the spreadsheet, replace 'user_key' in https://twitter.com/user_key/status/tweet_id with the screenname from the 'user_key' field and 'tweet_id' with the number in the 'tweet_id' field," reports NBC News. "Following the links will lead to a suspended page on Twitter. But some copies of the tweets as they originally appeared, including images, can be found by entering the links on webcaches like the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine and archive.is."
NBC News' partners at Neo4j have put together a "get started" guide to help you explore the database of Russian tweets. "To recreate a link to an individual tweet found in the spreadsheet, replace 'user_key' in https://twitter.com/user_key/status/tweet_id with the screenname from the 'user_key' field and 'tweet_id' with the number in the 'tweet_id' field," reports NBC News. "Following the links will lead to a suspended page on Twitter. But some copies of the tweets as they originally appeared, including images, can be found by entering the links on webcaches like the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine and archive.is."
200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the scary thing about it, and it doesn't just concern Russia or governments in general. One or two years ago a guy showed how easy it was to get an arbitrary (and obvious) fake story on the top page of reddit with a ridiculously small budget. (200 bucks or so) While this might be a dream for viral marketing agencies, used by the wrong people such ways of influencing a large number of people can wreak quite some havoc. (Not that I think that the traditional ways of propaganda and advertisement/branding are more beneficial.)
Re: 200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:2, Insightful)
Please... The obvious point is that it didn't influence shit.
If $1.2 billion in Clinton propaganda, 94% favorable domestic media coverage, an army of celebrity shills, a brainwashed electorate hooked on the welfare plantation, and every dirty trick in the book (plus new ones like buying FISA warrants) can't win you a presidency, then Russians tweeting about BLM literally did nothing.
This is obviously the Democrats and NeverTrumps desperately searching for an excuse so they don't have to admit that they los
Re: 200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
Please... The obvious point is that it didn't influence shit.
Very true. For comparison, there were 3.5 Millions Tweets generated in a couple hours during the 2012 VP debate between Biden and Ryan, a debate that didn't mean squat.
Re: 200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
The relevant metric is how much influence these tweets had. How much they were retweeted, how much they shaped the discourse.
Just comparing the language in the tweets to some of the posts on Slashdot suggests that some people were heavily influenced. Usually the ones who insist that the Russians had no effect on anything.
You see the same behaviour with cult members.
Re: 200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, why do you assume posts made here are genuine and not also troll accounts, whether Russian or just asshats from wherever? If they would use Twitter, why not other popular sites as well?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you make the mistake of thinking that the people who read those tweets or follow this accounts were anywhere close to neutral to start with. I do not think you could find many people who had their minds changed.
True, but it might have riled them up enough to remember to vote; when without the false placed anger, they might have not voted.
Re: (Score:3)
were anywhere close to neutral
In American politics there's no such thing. You are blue or red. Any alternative viewpoint or idea that you could meet in the middle is heresy. Any deviation from the party line needs to be punished.
Democracy at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
were anywhere close to neutral
In American politics there's no such thing. You are blue or red. Any alternative viewpoint or idea that you could meet in the middle is heresy. Any deviation from the party line needs to be punished.
Democracy at its finest.
That is red-pilled vs blue-pilled.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
a) yes, it is easiest to whip up furor in and manipulate those that aren't neutral.
b) There are definitely troll and bot accounts on Slashdot.
Re: 200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:4, Funny)
How do we know AmiMoJo isn't a Russian?
To the contrary, we KNOW that AmiMoJo is a Russian. We know this because a law firm hired by a political consultant paid a foreign national to write down things that people he paid in Russia told him, and he put it in a dossier. And that dossier was confirmed by news articles that were written because the same guy who was paid to assemble the phony dossier briefed the reporters who then pretended they had other sources. So, obviously we know that AmiMoJo is a Russian, because we have enough evidence to convince a judge (as long as we don't mention who was paying for all of this) to grant the government the power to listen in on his communications, and the mainstream media will thus spend a year and a half repeating all of this non-stop as if it were fact. There, see how this works?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird, I go months without coming on here
Hey, look! An obvious lie.
But even so, you can't muster the intellectual honesty or energy to actually address the substance of the matter. Which would be pretty typical of a Russian troll like yourself, I guess. Carry on, Ivan.
Re: 200k tweets vs 6.5 billion dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
The relevant metric is how much influence these tweets had.
Application of common sense tells us very little if any. Do you actually believe someone changed their vote because they read one of these tweets among the tons of other tweets out there?
I think we need to address Russian meddling, but its not like its made any difference to this point.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a good quality speech using terms people in each state could relate too.
Jobs, education, trade, spending.
Talking up the past and future of the state.
Talking to the people of that state in a positive way.
Been able to give a good quality speech in person in that state and the next state.
A good speaking voice and the duration of the speech is also important. So is an accent.
Then giving another great speech in the next state.
Not sta
Re: (Score:2)
You understatement the gullibility of the uneducateds.
And if you understand their gullibility, common sense might tell you these relatively few tweets were not likely to change the minds of people who are getting orders of magnitude more tweets, just as misleading, from domestic sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much was announced regarding the indictments of these Russians which wasn't already known, i.e. some people from Russia spent some money and effort on what they thought would disrupt things in the U.S., but didn't really accomplish much.
The most telling part of the statement from the Special Counsel's office was:
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see what is known is some people in Russia spent money on clickbait in order to make money. As usual I concur with this guy : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2... [moonofalabama.org]
Most people will disagree, but then most people aren't able to think for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
So what specific allegation remains regarding "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and the Russians?
Can you tell us who was supposed to have colluded when and what they colluded about? I'm not asking you to prove it at this point, just to at least be able to list the criminal accusation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of those tweets are about politics but without a clear purpose:
"How fucked up our country will be if Hillary wins in 2016 and Trump wins in 2020
Or vise versa"
What's the angle there? Sow the seeds of common sense?
Re: (Score:3)
What's the angle there? Sow the seeds of common sense?
Common sense is what the warmongering cryptocracy establishment fear the most.
Re: (Score:2)
Equating HRC to Trump. This was incredible effective too - just read this story.
Re: (Score:2)
I reckon the fact that all the money celebs and media were on one side made people think they were being railroaded.
If the media is 60:40 in favour of one side, it looks like one side is ahead. If it's 70:30 it looks like one side is more ahead. If it's 94:06 it starts to look dubious.
It's like those elections in a dictatorship where the dictator gets 99% of the vote. Everyone knows they're fake.
I.e. a plurality on one side looks like a consensus. Unanimity one side looks like the system is rigged.
Maybe the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if 94% of the media says today is Saturday, do you throw away your calendars?
You're buying into the "there is no such thing as truth" mindhack, which is how Donald Trump got elected in the first place. Once you can get people to believe nothing is true, then you can get them to do anything. It is the ultimate "Listen and Believe".
Re: (Score:3)
Donald Trump got elected because as dislikable he is he's less dislikable than Hillary Clinton. And having a bunch of even more dislikable journalists on her side didn't do her any favours.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary got 3 million more votes, Hal.
Re: (Score:2)
If it didn't influence shit then you and the rest of the US of A wouldn't talk about it all the time, like e.g. now here. According to the reports they wanted to divide your nation. Well, if that was their goal then they have been tremendously successful (judging from the posts on /.)
Re: (Score:2)
Please... The obvious point is that it didn't influence shit.
Oh, Boris. Just wait until yo see just what it influences
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They sure did, and it is scary as fuck.
What about Canada? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not American, I live in Canada, and I certainly admit posting a lot of comments on social networks during the last US election. Worse, a lot of prominent Canadian figures made comment after comment on social networks about both Trump and Clinton. I'm sure Canadians posted more than 200,000 tweets. So why not accuse Canada of interfering with the US elections?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American, I live in Canada, and I certainly admit posting a lot of comments on social networks during the last US election. Worse, a lot of prominent Canadian figures made comment after comment on social networks about both Trump and Clinton. I'm sure Canadians posted more than 200,000 tweets. So why not accuse Canada of interfering with the US elections?
Because I doubt most of them supported the unapproved (by the left) outcome ... that's why Canadian tweets were OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it doesn't fit the narrative? Also because we're only angry at people who don't apologise for their interference ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge difference between individual Canadians trying to influence our election and an organized push by the Canadian government, much as there is a difference between a Canadian citizen committing murder in the US and the Canadian military shooting people in the US.
Maybe you think I'll get tired of calling out this (Score:2)
Here's what really happened: People wanting to influence the election purchased ads through Russia, which happened to be selling for the lowest cost. Also the media, including someone who is paying Slashdot, is STILL trying to push the idea that Trump's presidency is somehow illegitimate because "Russian interference". At the same time claims are being made that Russia is somehow related to the DNC leaks. This is being done to avoid
Here's my take on it. Flame away... (Score:2, Interesting)
Noticed about 2012 how the Internet seems to change. Lots more ranty right-wing stuff, lots of unhinged SJW posts, outburst of trolling designed to annoy or piss off.
I like looking at conspiracy sites for fun. Similarly around 2012 there's a big change from the usual Ron Paul stuff & general government distrust to progressively more extreme right-wing material. Lots of posts trying to rehabilitate uncle Adolf, lots more racism, not much in the way of conspiracies - RedIce being an obvious example. At th
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to underestimate how much money you can make selling vitamins. According to his former employees, he could see $10,000/hr of vitamins, and is playing 4 hours a day five says a week. That certainly seems plausible.
Or rather, if Candy Crsuh can sell 2.2 million dollars of digital nonsense a day, it's easy to believe Alex Jones can see overpriced vitamin
Re: (Score:2)
When you type "conspiracy sites" you do mean "vast right-wing conspiracy" sites--don't you?
I hope you can get the joke.
If not, Google is your friend.
Btw, when DJT first announced he was running for POTUS, rational persons, who were unfamiliar with his personal history, thought he was running as a publicity stunt. Remember (or look it up), he was previously a registered Democrat before he switched parties to run in the Republican primary.
it isn't difficult (Score:2)
Re:I take this as a badge of honor (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that our elections are free and open enough AND THEY KNOW they can influence them through social media meddling,.
Fixed that for ya
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that our elections are free and open enough AND THEY KNOW they can influence them through social media meddling,.
Fixed that for ya
The Russian social media meddling was rather low budget and they likely got what the paid for.
A much more expensive but much more effective way to meddle in an election is to manipulate content on television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, ...) and manipulate the results of highly regarded polls in order to demoralize supporters of a candidate. Tens (or hundreds) of millions of people are exposed to network media every day.
Anyhow, the demoralization of a candidate's supporters isn't likely to influence their
Re:How does a long term member unsubscribe? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the trap now isn't it.
Facts start to come out after the investigation has had time, and now it's "I'm tired of this".
Shame to let facts start intruding onto our personal bubbles, isn't it?
The reality is that we're on the verge of a new cold war based on information and social media. This isn't about one election, it's about how states are choosing to behave with meddling. And I'm not suggesting we're not guilty of doing some of the same things. But it's all escalating and it'll get worse before it gets better.
Re:How does a long term member unsubscribe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it's true. Why do we need a bloody Russia post every 12 hours on this site? So people can have political fights? Seriously.
We're not all Americans here. So we're not all crazy about politics, day in, day out.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's true. Why do we need a bloody Russia post every 12 hours on this site? So people can have political fights? Seriously.
Political fights means more new content means more page views means more ad impressions means Slashdot continues to be a thing. As ever, if you don't like a story, you can skip it. Or can you? Maybe you have a problem, and should see someone about it.
Re: (Score:2)
As ever, if you don't like a post, you can skip it. Or can you? Maybe you have a problem, and should see someone about it.
I'm having fun! It's the GP that's whinging.
Re: (Score:3)
It is sort of Stuff That Matters, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder the same thing about Apple posts, or cryptocurrency. I mean, isn't once a week enough?
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we need a bloody Russia post every 12 hours on this site?
Because it's the nerds who enabled this new kind of targeted enabling to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's about Twitter, it's tech news. If you don't like it, don't read the fucking article or posts. Jesus, you're a delicate little snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There really has been an intense amount for weeks and weeks.
I think my main issue is that someone, who should probably whining and fighting on Reddit politics or something, is so bitter and angry they want EVERYONE to have to discuss this shit, by bringing it here to stir up a fuss. It's effectively trolling at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, facts such as there was just as much pro Hillary as there was was pro Trump.
If only that meant something, you might not be a Russian shill.
Re: (Score:2)
New cold war based on freedom of speech. I'm so terrified. When I walk past the tabloid section of my bookstore, I am raped.
Americans weren't in any danger from the first cold war, because the USSR was building cardboard tanks to try to look like they actually could keep up with our manufacturing capacity and still went bankrupt... apparently, building cardboard tanks is too expensive for Russia. Nobody is worried about an all-out military confrontation with them. It's only nuclear war that's scary.
You just put your lips together, and blow. (Score:2, Funny)
Putin, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was chosen for his soft lips.
Re: (Score:2)
How are you supposed to decide if this is real data? I think you need evidence of it's provenance before it's worth anything. Do you believe it because Microsoft's NBC says that Twitter says that it's accurate?
Re: (Score:2)
So some, unknown fraction, of the data can be validated as accurate, the those who are offering the data know in advance what can be validated.
I'm sorry, but to me this says "You can split the data into two chunks. One chunk you can validate, and the other you can't. We know ahead of time which pieces you can validate, but trust us, the rest is honest."
Please note, this doesn't mean I believe they're lying this time. It just means I don't trust the protocol. (I actually have no opinion about whether the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say there are potentially 3 investigations:
1. Russian meddling in the election
2. Trump's team's collusion with the Russians
3. Trump's personal involvement in collusion with the Russians.
Like you say, these are quite different questions and a "yes" on one does not necessarily imply the others are true (depending on which we're talking about). #1 is pretty much settled. It occurred, and the data that NBC published is more evidence. #2 is suspicious, because you've got people like Paul Manafort who led
Re: (Score:3)
The thing that bothers me in all this is that Trump is utterly fixated on his own innocence
Wouldn't you be, too, if all day long the mainstream media and vitriolic political opponents were screeching non-stop about how you're a traitor? He has work to do, and has been doing a great deal of it, despite this phony relentlessness from the Clinton camp and her supporters. No, I'm sure that if you had CNN calling you a traitor 24 hours a day, you'd just clam up and let them lie about you, right? Sure, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, at the end of the day, it wouldn't surprise if Trump was at least technically innocent. He seems so detached from reality, with only a few touch points to the outside world (mainly Fox News) that I wouldn't be at all surprised if Kushner, Don Jr., Manafort, Flynn and whoever else were cozying up to the Russians without really informing him, or if they did, because it wasn't Sean Hannity saying it, he probably didn't process it.
I really do believe that anyone who talks about Trump himself colluding
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from ferreting out shills, maybe an approach to addressing this is taking another stab at reforming our system to allow for more than two political parties. It's harder to vilify your opponents when you'll be fo
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Really?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/w... [judicialwatch.org]
https://thepoliticalinsider.co... [thepoliticalinsider.com]
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2... [lasvegassun.com]
https://www.ice.gov/news/relea... [ice.gov]
https://www.ice.gov/news/relea... [ice.gov]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.justice.gov/usao-w... [justice.gov]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g... [breitbart.com]
https://www.snopes.com/cascade... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Your studies state that even the very few people that illegally voted could not have changed the outcome of any election.
The rest of these are onsy twosy cases, or terrible articles based off of misreading of the studies presented.
--
Whats up Doc? - B. Bunny
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're comfortable with a life of fallacy so be it. You dismiss Snopes (on the opposite end of the political spectrum) and multiple federal websites when you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That Harvard study disagrees with your last statement.
BTW, those videos you refuse to watch from Project Veritas have New York (and other) election officials admitting to buses going from neighborhood to neighborhood with the same people voting multiple times. "Ducks on the ground" talk started to get somewhat hilarious sounding after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
But a look at the facts makes clear fraud is vanishingly rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election. [brennancenter.org]
In-person voter fraud ‘a very rare phenomenon’ [politifact.com]
That first link has many links of its own, to papers from NYU, Columbia University, Arizona State, etc. Nothing from
Re: (Score:2)
Project Veritas is such a pain the ass to people who refuse to accept evidence of reality because they tend to go undercover and get indisputable video (and other) records of shenanigans going on.
Since you don't like the video-only YouTube stuff (and to be honest the modern era of making everything and video and having print stuff become increasingly rare and hard to filter and find bothers me too) I'll leave you with a couple of less video-centric links.
https://www.projectveritas.com... [projectveritas.com]
https://www.projectv [projectveritasaction.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I know about the edit accusations. They released two versions, a long form unedited and a version that trimmed out dead time and irrelevant info.
The propaganda mills that wanted to downplay and discredit Project Veritas simply pointed at the trimmed one and kept yelling "edited!" While pretending the other wasn't also available.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the edited one, not the long form. Ignoring exactly what was said....
Re: (Score:2)
I have looked at your comment history.
I take your recommendation as almost irrelevant and as something akin to a drive-by considering the number of "kill yourself" posts and similar low-brow nonconstructive commentary you tend to make.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'll actually read the links most of them predate the current POTUS, so sure, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
That really reads like most AC comments on ./ for the past 5 years. Scary.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing when you look through the dataset is how high of a portion of the tweets are "@Name", particularly "@InfluentialName". They weren't just putting things out in the ether - they were taking steps to make sure that they got seen.
Re: (Score:3)
And I suspect that's why Twitter, Facebook, Google and the rest are going to have to start putting some serious efforts into preventing these Russian troll farms from using their platforms in the future. France already has some rules that basically limited the Russians from offering the Front National too much aid and comfort in the final lead up to the French presidential election, and the warnings are going up in many Western countries "Regulate your platforms or governments will regulate you."
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they had no influence on the election. They're dated after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, a large fraction of the American Right has basically swallowed the Russian propaganda without question. I'm still not sure that turned the election towards Trump, but it has certainly created a pro-Trump base in the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that mainstream news *is* fake. Which doesn't make the social media garbage any more reliable. There aren't any reliable sources of news. Local news, from local sources, is often biased in a predictable way, and that's the best you can do. If 90% of their audience can't check what they're reporting, they feel free to get totally creative.
OK, I exaggerate. But not by that bloody much. And you can't even tell which direction they're spinning things, since it generally seems to turn more o
Re: (Score:2)
Is it illegal to tweet a political opinion? Is it illegal to tweet about a candidate?
No. And, again, no.
The crime here is conspiracy to defraud the United States. From the actual indictment text, "...knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the Presidential election of 2016."
Re: (Score:2)
It very much is if you're a foreigner who's getting paid to distribute political propaganda, be it through Twitter or any other media. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] for detais.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Dossier's origins are more complicated than that, so there'd be a few conservatives on your little charge sheet as well, if the Dossier were in any way equivalent to Russian troll farms, which it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
And no, the two aren't equivalent, you're right. The business with Steele lying, the Clinton machine hiding their hand and payments, and the use of Steele's phony narrative (and phony self-corroboration) in order to facilitate an in-power p
Re: (Score:2)
https://media.giphy.com/media/... [giphy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "substance" to the matter. If you're referring to the Steele dossier it had zero influence on the election. But, whatever floats your boat i guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you learn to write such good english? I went to American schools but clearly Russian schools can do better
Re: (Score:2)
You know we know you're a Russian troll, right? The cat's out of the bag, Comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't he do something to secure our elections?
He did. Maybe you forgot the time back in 2016 when the Obama WH met with McConnell to inform him and others in Congress of Russian interference, and asked for a public warning announcement. McConnell denied it and stated he would oppose any announcement as political interference by Obama in the election.
Re: (Score:2)
And an interesting question is whether this response indicates that at that time McConnell was aware that the Russians were intervening in favor of the Republicans. It is, of course, far from proof, but it's certainly suggestive.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they did. The GOP and McConnell in particular just made a point of obstructing Obama on everything possible back in the day - he even acknowledged so publicly.
Re: (Score:2)
And what was Obama supposed to do, bomb St. Petersburg?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, and I remember the paranoia. It might not have been as bad as the 50s and 60s, since the Soviet Union was pretty obviously in a decline it couldn't even hide by the 1980s, but still, there was no lack of fear of some sort of nuclear war. The TV movie the Day After, which was a big deal at the time, gives you an idea of the kind of fear that many in the West felt at in the early and mid-80s.
So no, the concern of Russian interference now is nothing like the fear thirty or for
Re: (Score:2)
Qanon's posts are only interesting to genuine nerds. Slashdot has been overrun by normies ... or maybe they're pod people. Well, whatever, nerds on Slashdot seems to be a disappearing breed.