If Facebook is used then reddit could have been used too, no big deal there. Facebook at least would take money to show ads, I don’t think they would have taken out ads on reddit though. I wouldn’t be surprised if r/the_donald is full of Russian trolls riling people up.
I always hoped r/the_Donald had a lot of Russian trolls. The racsism and misogyny there can be crazy and it would make me feel better if it was trolls instead of sincere people
A lot of trolls are sincere though, or at least are indistinguishable from them. I mean I've used nazi symbolism and whatnot ironically / "for teh lulz" in the past, but if you looked at that shit if you didn't know it you'd be sure I was serious.
Yeah, I mean I hope most of the people aren't serious. My worry is that you can't really get a subreddit that large of joking racists without it being explicit that it's a joke. The subreddit almost assuredly has actual racists hiding among the kids who just want it be part of a counterculture.
>if you looked at that shit if you didn't know it you'd be sure I was serious
And if you kept posting it long enough, and participating in that community long enough, it's very likely there would stop being a meaningful difference between what you posted ironically and sincerely.
In the past they've made fun of Pakistanis for being inbred and implied that the only way that some actresses could have gotten famous was through sexual favors (this was during the start of the #metoo thing). Most of the subreddit is memes and random political nonsense but when certain topics come up there is a lot of hate. I don't have any specific data as it would be weird to just keep evidence on hand for these sorts of claims but I could get some examples later when I have time if it's really necessary.
If your goal is more than just to convince them to vote trump but to radicalize and spread ideas r/the_Donald is the perfect place to do it. If you look at how a lot of conspiracy theories spread from there I can see it being very enticing
No doubt: my point was simply that they were doing the same thing people do with things like A/B testing ads – try a bunch of things and measure the results.
It's a good laboratory to test out memes and narrative framings for distribution more broadly. It basically winds up working like a big genetic algorithm for developing viral content.
Also, while the extremists might not be able to vote in numbers to turn an election, they can definitely make the internet a sufficiently unpleasant place for discussion that they have a chilling effect on support for everyone else.
Many Clinton enthusiasts were hounded into "secret" or private subreddits and Facebook groups because of the intensity of abuse they received. Most of the more leftist and Bernie Sanders supporting spaces were, likewise, spammed with so much FUD content that it was impossible to have a productive conversation about anything else. They were a seriously disruptive influence on the capacity for anyone else to organize.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Nobody is claiming that he didn't win the election. My point was just that /r/the_donald has substantially less than 62MB members so his message had to reach other groups of people.
Similarly, arguing about rally sizes may be a fun political argument but ultimately it comes down to 62M votes for Trump and 65M for Clinton, so it's hard to say there was a huge difference in the number of people who supported each candidate.
I'm sure it was - so much so that Reddit had to change policies and their algorithms significantly because they were getting flooded by it. r/the_donald's activity and prominence died very sharply right after the elections, and I can't believe that Reddit rolled out their changes right after said elections; I prefer to believe the trolls and bots just stopped or slowed down a lot because mission achieved.
However, I'm still waiting for Russia to massively benefit from the Trump administration.
That said, I don't really see how Reddit was "dragged" into this whole mess. Out of all the social media sites, Reddit is the least protected and filled with most of the opinionated folks, if not outright trolls. But it seems not being a "mainstream" social media site has helped.
Even if Reddit isn't mainstream publications like Buzzfeed, Slate, etc. pretty obviously trawl reddit to find fodder for trend pieces and ideas for columns.
It's also basically responsible for the death of BBSes and community forums all around the internet. It's eaten up tons of niche online subcultures.
In favor of much higher discoverability (I'd argue); having a common UI and platform helps. Similar to how in a previous age, having vBulletin like a lot of the other online communities helps with familiarity. Reddit adds that you don't need a separate account to interact with a community.
>In favor of much higher discoverability (I'd argue)
That is the trade-off isn't it? The downside, though, is that Reddit's interaction design privileges low-effort, easily digestible, and sharable content at the expense of everything else. Especially the kind of off-topic personal discussion that builds durable "communities" that go deeper than just sharing content about a particular topic.
> Reddit's interaction design privileges low-effort, easily digestible, and sharable content at the expense of everything else
Along those lines, Reddit's format (and indeed, HN's format, because it's nearly identical) makes holding conversations very cumbersome. It's like the difference between a directory holding a bunch of files, and directory holding a single file & another directory, which holds the next file & another directory, etc, etc.
Yeah. This has been my frustration with the development of social media in general (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
The old conversational style on Usenet/IRC/BBS felt like a group of people talking together. Possibly having parallel conversations with multiple groups of people at a time.
The social media model feels more like having a bunch of individual one-on-one conversations in parallel. It's good for broadcasting a thought or idea, but terrible for actually having a discussion.
There are pros and cons to both, but the latter is a lot more cognitively intensive and makes it really hard to have the kind of conversation/discussion where you learn something new. If you have a controversial opinion it feels like you get dogpiled by 1,000 people all saying the same thing. It's hard to even know where to start and it doesn't feel like people are giving you feedback on your point, it just feels like everyone is trying to attack you. When you're speaking with a group people usually let one or two people make the points and just add on as they feel is needed.
It's a way more manageable conversational flow, and one that's more likely to encourage people to actually talk to each other rather than talking to the caricature of whatever they imagine someone who would say something like that to be. Instead you just get long discussion threads that inevitably devolve into 2 people slinging downvotes and variations on "You're a doodyhead" at each other. In an IRC chat, even if the moderator doesn't shut that down, the rest of the group will tell you to STFU and move on.
I visited the worldnews subreddit at times. The pro-Russian tilt with plenty of links to RT.com was fairly obvious. I thought about writing the moderators, but with it so obvious, I personally assumed that there was somebody on the moderation team protecting the Russian submissions.
There was definitely something going on in 2006. Reddit has always been rather left-leaning, but for a ~6 month period the top of /r/worldnews was nothing but "Immigrant commits <crime>" and similar. I'm sure some real people got drawn into it, but there was definitely some funny business.
It can be organic if enough people who share an interest in world news have been influenced by their earlier marketing efforts.
In the early 2010s RT invested heavily in advertising to people who can be vaguely classified as "political contrarians", somewhat dissatisfied with how the American government uses its power, but also sufficiently aligned with mainstream politics.
Similar efforts have been undertaken by Qatar (Al Jazeera - AJ+). China (CGTN) is a new entrant, but I haven't watched it closely to say if they're taking the same approach.
I was going to say "if I call washingtonpost.com links pro-American tilt", would you subscribe to that view? But then you'd say "but the RT is state-sponsored!" to which I would say "there are many mechanisms to influence media other than owning them, see e.g. Manufacturing Consent" etc etc.
It's like we're running around in circles with this conversation, neither side seems to be getting to the other side.
Instead I'll take a more pragmatic approach. Could you please share one of these RT.com links which you say have a pro-Russian tilt? I want to see if I agree with you. Then I'll share a washingtonpost.com link which I think has a pro-American tilt; I want to see if you agree with me.
If you are a foreign government or individual that wants to lobby or advertise politically, you must register with FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act).
> The purpose of FARA is to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws. In 1938, FARA was Congress' response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the pre-WWII U.S.
Charges
1.Conspiracy to defraud (being unregistered foreign agents acting in politics and stealing SSNs to bring money in), 2. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud (laundering money to pay for ads and using stolen SSNs)
3. Identity theft (SSNs)
So the answer is yes it's illegal to be a state actor propagandizing if you aren't registered under the Foreign Agent Restriction Act (which I'll have to read and chuckle over) and based on a quick scan of the primary document the indictments are for the way they tried to work around it.
EDIT: Not sure if the downvotes are because you feel I support Trump (I'm a Brit, I have no allegiances) or something else. But you can't deny that /r/politics and the other subreddits like esist etc cause just as much drama. There's no nuanced debate anymore. Just pick a a team and fight to the death.
The error you made is that you imply that fake news is somehow related to lack of nuance, biased news, single viewpoint, downvoting news you you don't like or drama in general.
Fake News is is deliberate misinformation and hoaxes published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically.
I hope you understand the difference. You didn't see the nuance.
r/politics is just as tilted left and used by propaganda groups as r/donald is tilted right. If you think either side has a monopoly on rationality and pure intentions, you are deceiving yourself.
moving the goalposts. r/poltitics is certainly tilted left, but is not filled with false left-wing propaganda illegally created by a foreign enemy.
ShareBlue is not a propaganda arm of a foreign enemy, it is a US-based partisan blog, and additionally the accusation here is that they commented without disclosure of their affiliation. that is nothing like the coordinated propaganda, false/stolen US identities, wire fraud, and other scam operations sponsored by the Russian government. There is no criminal indictment against ShareBlue.
These supposed foreign entities helped just as many people on the left, like Bernie and impersonated left-leaning entities like Black Lives Matter. And their involvement was minimial (100k) compared to what the major political parties were spending on the election. Hillary spent 1.5 billion dollars.
Reddit had to tune its algorithm to make the_donald stop appearing on the front page. And it wasn't Russian bots upvoting Trump stuff. It was people who actually liked and voted for Trump. However you want to slice it, a good portion of this country voted for Trump on their own accord. Not because of Russians, but because they actually liked Trump. No one disputes this. So stop with the Russian bullshit. It just makes the left look like idiots, like they're trying to come up with a reason Hillary lost when in reality people just disagreed with what Hillary had to say. People are tired of this Russian stupidity. Everyone knows it doesn't pass the smell test. It's been years investigating this and the world's premier spy apparatus can't dig the dirt up on Trump. Think about what that tells you.
Since you asked, I'll tell you why I think you deserve some downvotes...
First, it's a low-effort post.
Second, it's off-base. The article is about Russian propaganda influencing and dividing Americans. But your comment implies it's about something else, like anti-Trump groups being just as bad as pro-Trump groups.
Not to mention, after that low-effort, off-base comment, it's awfully cheeky to call for nuanced debate.
I think that's actually a straw man argument. For example, since when did pandering to literal Nazis (i.e. Charlottesville) become a nuanced topic? If r/politics has become more left-leaning in recent times, couldn't it simply be because of things like that? Humans do have tendency to form camps and take sides but sometimes one side really is way off base. I think this is one of those times. The effective leader of the Republican party (the Republican POTUS) continues to demonstrate on a daily basis his lack of basic character and empathy. This is not a nuanced issue and it's trivial to find examples of this.
When one side regularly crosses major red lines, people shouldn't cry foul to both sides when the debate rapidly becomes polarized.
I disagree. A sizable portion of the population very clearly thinks of America as White Country, a perspective that is completely irreconcilable with the liberal melting pot approach.
But there's very little middle ground between "there were bad people on both sides" (i.e. What Trump said after Charlottesville, clearly implying that Nazis deserve some kind of consideration amidst a protest in which people's blood was on their hands) and the outage people rightfully feel in response to comments like that. Sorry but there is no debate to be had with people like that. None. Zero.
Oh, so that's why Reddit started restricting what sites can be shared on large subreddits. Anything you share on Reddit these days must be from BBC, CNN, NBC, and so on. Only large sites allowed... which is just as bad as Russian propaganda. Instead of the Russian side of events, now you only hear the pro-Western side only.
That's not even remotely true. If you look at the subreddits with whitelists, the whitelists almost always include Al Jazeera, RT, and plenty of other non-western media.
> Instead it seems Russia's aim was to provoke and divide Americans on the internet and, as a result, in the physical world too.
What I really don't understand about the "Russia wants to divide us!" talk is, if this is such a grave concern, why do we give a free pass to identical speech originating from domestic actors? Isn't that also dividing us as a country? BLM, #NotMyPresident, pro/anti-gun rhetoric, etc. -- we have plenty of this kind of stuff floating around already, and in the case of BLM, "the resistance", etc. it's all seen as a good thing, or at worst, "starting a dialogue on X." If spreading these kind of messages online is sowing discord in our country, why aren't we going after domestic organizations as well?
I think the idea is that domestic organizations operated (for lack of a better word) by US Citizens have an end goal of making the country better for themselves. Russia seemingly didn't care about the end goals, just sowing general discord. Their endgame isn't a better United States, it's a divided United States.
> Their endgame isn't a better United States, it's a divided United States.
But again, if we're concerned about a divided United States, why is there no concern over divisive speech generated within the United States? I mean one of the things the Russians did was organize a resistance march. So... Russian-organized resistance march = bad. American-organized resistance march = good (we had one of those too, unless those dastardly Russians were behind it as well). Huh? How does a resisting a legitimately-elected president do anything good for this country? How does that NOT sow discord? That was the whole point! And yet, we don't see a problem with the domestic actors taking these actions.
Disagreements about issues is what politics is all about. I would be more concerned if we all were in lock-step agreement! Ultimately those disagreements and differing views are from a desire to make this country better. Unchecked foreign influence undermines these debates.
The Russian case was deliberate stoking of issues until their advocates could no longer talk civilly and rationally. They played up caricatures of each side to destroy any common ground. It's the deliberate stoking of discord to our people, which bleeds into our politics, and hampers our nation's actions globally. A disrupted US politic gives Russia more room to maneuver globally without rousing our attention. None of these things serve to advance the original issues raised by the people that were targeted.
Even if the discord didn't emerge, the taint of Russian influence diminishes legitimacy and trust in an issue and its advocates by sowing doubt in the movement's motivations. This undermines all kinds of debates and freezes movement on all sorts of issues.
Lets put concrete into an abstract idea.
Putting aside everything else about Trump, during the campaign Trump insisted "Wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia?" Was this a legitimate call for undoing decades of demonization that is a product of the Cold War? Or does he want to score lucrative quid-pro-quo deals and access to Putin? The campaign meetings with Russian contacts doesn't inspire benefit of the doubt.
Finally all other things being equal, the protesters here have skin in the game. Foreign influencers, outside of what they want to influence, do not. Foreign powers can cause all kinds of harm while spared the consequences. Us locals have to live with those consequences.
Intent matters? Or at least it used to, as it tempered the debate and kept things civil. Now there is functionally no difference between one honest side of the debate and a Russian troll, so you're point seems valid.
The presidential election showed conclusively who the real propagandists in America are, and it’s not Russia. I’ll admit that I didn’t read the article, and this comment may not even be relevant, but I can’t take the Russian propaganda meme at all seriously, either in this lifetime or the next or the one after that. This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media.
>This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media.
Oh sure, totally fake news:
>A leak of internal data from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency discovered by The Daily Beast serves as the first confirmation that the Russian troll farm deployed its online agitators on Reddit as part of its campaign to interfere in American politics.
I downvoted because this comment is cryptic and adds nothing to the conversation. Saying something controversial / conspiratorial is not automatically bad, as long as you provide some logic and evidence. But this is just devoid of value.
Growing up in Russia I’ve seen the propaganda spread within the country, I have no doubt they use the same tactics abroad as it has become so easy/cheap to reach unwitting users on social platforms.
I don’t think Russia had/has a specific goal I mind other than disruption. I don’t believe they necessarily wanted Trump because of some evil plan/agreement. The evil plan is to take advantage of gullible Americans and create instability. Of course it takes more than just a Facebook campaign and it helps that the US is already pretty devided as it stands and there seems to be a perfect political storm to take advantage of.
If you see how they talk on Russian TV about the “decline of the West” and how bad every politician is, pretty much 24/7 you’ll probably better understand where it’s coming from.
Here is a 37 page federal indictment of employees of the Internet Research Agency who were deeply involved in Russian-produced propaganda in the 2016 election. This is neither a "meme" nor is it a creation of any "media" source. Worth a read:
Mueller directly states the he doesn't believe any of this affected the election.
I have read that IRA spent about $500 each in ad buys in the 3 borderline blue/red 'purple' states that went to Trump in the Nov 2016 election.
Even if we assume the 100k they spent on ad buys went directly to the 3 purple states, and generated a million CPM... ads paid for by the RNC and DNC and the PACs generated several trillion impressions.
You know what, I'm Fake News. I was not reading Mueller's remarks. I was reading Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Rod Rosenstein's prepared remarks about the indictment.
Rosenstein said there was no proof anything covered by the indictment affected the Nov 2016 election.
Here is C-SPAN video of Rosenstein announcing the indicment
"There is no allegation in the indictment" has nothing to do with what anyone believes and even less to do with what is actually true. Further, anyone definitively claiming that the outcome of the election was or wasn't affected by Russian interference is peddling partisanship and not facts because it is impossible to know.
> Further, anyone definitively claiming that the outcome of the election was or wasn't affected by Russian interference is peddling partisanship and not facts because it is impossible to know.
I realize this isn't math, but I've studied the ads that IRA paid for, I am pretty familiar with what the employees of IRA did, I've read about how much money was spent on Facebook ads (100k, and almost half of that was spent after the Nov 2016 election ), I've read about how many CPMs were generated vs how many ads American facebook viewers saw ( a few million vs 16 trillion), I'm pretty sure I know!
yes, he did say that, but also that does not say "he does not believe this affected the outcome". It was widely noted that his wording in this statement was extremely careful, and merely stated a true fact: "there is no allegation in the indictment". Which of course there isn't because it is impossible to legally prove the outcome of the election being affected by nearly anything. Having documents like this indictment that are 100% on solid ground is very helpful, as in this discussion it is pointing out how many people here seem unconcerned about foreign interference in an election due to reasons like "people want it to be true" and "you can't prove it changed the outcome". Those aren't good reasons to just let the Russians come in every election and go nuts.
I agree we shouldn't let the Russians just do whatever they want in America.
I have carefully read the indictment. I also notice the indictment is mostly stuff from sources like the RBC IRA report. None of this is deep state deep secret stuff.
I just want proof the Russians affected the election! I'm willing to believe.
I can point to many documented cases of various US intelligence agency and non intelligence agency campaigns to affect elections in other countries. It's all there, in black and white, very clear.
The recent Mueller indictment doesn't convince me. Maybe there will be future indictments. I just don't think the IRA spending a few hundred dollars on targeted ads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania got Trump elected. I think it was the billions of dollars spent by various conservative entities over the last 25 years, who have been plotting to take down the Clintons since the early 90s.
The question that is critical though -> was it with the knowledge and support of Trump or was the agistation designed simply to sow discord by taking out the front runner (Clinton.)
My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians, So, some are under the impression that Trump colluded with the Russians while the real story appears to be that Russia wasn’t colluding with Trump but simply trying to create chaos over the election process. There is evidence to this because some of this Russian stuff dates back to 2014 — long before Trump was even thinking about running and far before anyone took him to be a contender. There will be the argument that Trump’s campaign met with Russian officials during the campaign. However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.)
This Russia thing is real; that Trump was part of it is not. Honestly, Trump wasn't sophisticated enough to run a multinational spy/propaganda operation with the Russians. If he were, then that would necessarily discredit arguments that he isn’t smart or sophisticated enough to be president.
> My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians
That doesn't matter. The Russian government interfered, that's a fact. Also a fact, the president is illegally refusing to enact sanctions against Russia passed overwhelmingly by congress in retaliation for this interference. You should be extremely concerned that the president is actively breaking the law every day by refusing to defend the country against a foreign enemy.
> However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.)
it is not illegal to speak to foreign governments during a political campaign. You should read up on the difference between accepting stolen materials from foreign governments, allowing foreign governments to spend money on a US poltiical campaign, vs. merely speaking to foreign governments.
Not to mention that the House Intelligence Committee would be allover a Clinton scandal in the election if they could find one. They tried to fabricate the notion that the Russians were actually working for Clinton. That was a better stream of inquiry, they felt, than whatever this "meeting with Chinese officials" that some right wing blog has told you is important (I can't even find any google results for it).
Actually agree. Instead of blaming the Russians the US parties should watch their own campaign ads and realize that they have trained their people to believe any nonsense as long as it helps the interests of "their" party. Of course it's much easier to blame the bad Russians instead of bringing civility and rational thought into their own political system.
montyf is likely trying to imply that the article isn't worth reading, because it's so obvious and self evident that the entire premise is "just more deflection and misdirection by the American media."
Note that they even asked for downvotes, in order to include Hacker News in the narrative of global propaganda and censorship, by way of appearing a martyr to the cause.
I'm surprised they didn't throw a reference to "sour grapes" or mention the DNC while they were at it.
Agreed. The Russia meddling controversy is the Democrat's "birther" movement, ameliorated only by the fact that there appears to be some truth to it, albeit with grossly overstated effects. It's a bogeyman that represents one half of the US population's inability to face the reality of who won the election and how they did it. Trump's supporters have been around and hateful since long before 2016.
And all of this would have precisely zero effect if Democrats managed to put up a candidate who isn't terrible enough to lose to Trump. US elections isn't the only ones they were trying to influence. In France, they went all in on Marine Le Pen, even the domestic media in Russia was singing her praises and vilifying Macron almost constantly. Guess what, she lost terribly in the end. No propaganda in the world would have lead her to win, just because the other guy was a much better candidate.
You are focusing on the crimes and not on the effects. The documents you link would detail the same crime if 100 or 100 million people were influenced. No one cared about Russian influence before Trump got elected, and now it's a post hoc explanation of how he was able to pull off a victory due to the inability of one half of the population to believe something about the other half.
> No one cared about Russian influence before Trump got elected
That's not true at all and you know it. Russian influence had been a point of discussion well before Trump's election. Heck, Hillary implied that Trump was a Russian puppet during the debates.
you compared it to the "birther" movement. now you are moving the goalposts.
Everyone cared about Russian influence before Trump was elected but the New York Times put out a huge story effectively killing the debate in October of 2016, additionally Mitch McConnell refused to bless president Obama's wish to alert the public that Russian interference was ongoing.
The Obama birther movement was borne out of an inability for Republicans to reconcile that Obama had won the election legitimately, and sought to disqualify him with anything they could find. Is the parallel more clear now? The Russia election meddling controversy, especially its effects on the election, are borne out of an inability for Democrats to reconcile that Trump legitimately won the election and are seeking to disqualify him with anything they can find.
> The Obama birther movement was borne out of an inability for Republicans to reconcile that Obama had won the election legitimately, and sought to disqualify him with anything they could find. Is the parallel more clear now?
not at all. birtherism is made up and borne of racism. Russian interference in the election is not and is borne of facts. While you are setting up a situation where these two things look the same, that only goes as far as them both being fantasies made up out of desire for them to be true. But that is not the nature of Russian election interference. There is no "parallel" between nonsense and reality. Democrats did not invent Russian election interference, it was observed in inconclusive, small ways before the election and tamped down by media reports, but then after the election it was shown to have been true and the government and media reversed its public-facing course. There would not be a federal prosecutor, the FBI, and multiple congressional committees involved over a period of months/years if this were a made up thing and you would not see Democrats talking about it. Democrats (Democrats, not fringe left-wing parties) do not engage in the type of made-up nonsense that was birtherism. The GOP should not either.
> are seeking to disqualify him with anything they can find.
The president cannot be "disqualified" from the election results, which are established history. Only impeached for his extreme conflicts of interest, ethical transgressions, conduct and unfitness for office, or preferably, removed of his partisan congressional protection in 2018 and voted out in 2020. Democrats are not calling for any kind of re-do of the election, feel free to provide a source for this of actual Democrats (not fringe left-wing parties) calling for this.
I love how you’re comparing it to something widely disparaged precisely because it was a (racist) lie, then continue to admit as much.
No, it is nothing like the “birther” idiocy. Nobody knows if it was enough to move the needle in this election. But there are simply some people who don’t want another trial to find out.
I don't know what a neo-liberal is, but sounds left. From right POV, the more left you go, the more enlarged the gov. The more right you go, the more personal freedom. Most know what the TEA party stands for: it is in the name.
So you'd agree that neo-liberal is to the left of the TEA party on that scale.
Leftists will naturally assume you should enact policies that encourage equality for all, but also believe that much of society's problems derive from income disparity. They will push for policies that shift the tax burden from the poor end of the spectrum to the richer end of the spectrum.
I would argue that neo-liberals believe in equality for all, but aren't willing to push for the income redistribution policies that leftists believe in. They believe that the standard economic policies of most governments on earth, to take a hands off approach to banks, labor and trade, is fine. Sometimes this is labeled as "classically liberal".
And yet this article was flagged off the front page within 20 minutes of reaching it. Meanwhile we’re on our fourth “Google discriminated against white guys” identipost on the fp in 24 hours. That doesn’t exactly reek of “Left Wing echo chamber” now does it?
