/r/MarchAgainstTrump /u/vantavoqy comments:
Libertarians are actually right wing authoritarians shock. I am shocked, literally shocked, shocked. Wikileaks Is nEuTrAl ThO
/r/WikiLeaks /u/transiray9 comments:
Libertarians are actually right wing authoritarians shock. I am shocked, literally shocked, shocked. Wikileaks Is nEuTrAl ThO
/r/GamerGhazi /u/ExtracurricularSpork comments:
Libertarians are actually right wing authoritarians shock. I am shocked, literally shocked, shocked. Wikileaks Is nEuTrAl ThO
/r/Fuckthealtright /u/yngulintn comments:
Libertarians are actually right wing authoritarians shock. I am shocked, literally shocked, shocked. Wikileaks Is nEuTrAl ThO
/r/hillaryclinton /u/fobica8n comments:
Libertarians are actually right wing authoritarians shock. I am shocked, literally shocked, shocked. Wikileaks Is nEuTrAl ThO
/r/esist /u/blogcatblack2q comments:
Libertarians are actually right wing authoritarians shock. I am shocked, literally shocked, shocked. Wikileaks Is nEuTrAl ThO
For clarity: I believe The Intercept article raises questions of legitimate concern, worthy of independent scrutiny, and that this rather heavy handed apparent attempt at perception management via social media does not discredit today's publication in any way.
I do also firmly believe, however, that potential propaganda activity of this form, as highlighted above, is worthy of equal concern and scrutiny.
My question: who do you think is behind this activity and why?
Keep in mind that engendering a perception that your opponent is engaged in lowly activity of this form is itself a powerful potential strategy, and one that is trivial to deploy across both anonymous and pseudo-anonymous forums.
Submitted February 14, 2018 at 09:43PM by system_exposure http://ift.tt/2Bvoqfd