> It's fine for citizens to voice positions, beliefs etc. It's not fine for organizations of hostile origins to astro-sturf and manipulate people into positions they wouldn't normally take.
As the Supreme Court has already apted noted, organizations enjoy free speech rights in the U.S. as well, including the right to advocate for positions you or others wouldn't normally take.
Yes, and I said 'of hostile origin' - the law still prohibits foreign nationals and foreign organizations spending in US elections. I want to know if they are at work here, and the reason why our media does not represent the people (who overwhelmingly voted for Trump).
Why would you assume that this was astro-turfed? I'd argue that, like other domestic surveillance that require FISA judicial approval, justifications for acts like these require a very high level of proof.
I spent ten years on reddit looking closely at the evolution of manipulation patterns from its early days to what it has become. The current anti-Trump admin positions are maintained far beyond the subtle techniques, the moderators on mainstream subreddits like /r/news will permanently ban you for not towing the line on left positions in your commenting.
I don't assume it's astro-turfed, I assess it is, and I want answers to confirm or refute it.
I was talking to a long time coworker the other day and they said straight faced basically you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. There are those who genuinely believe even at this point everything being done is justified.
You’re regurgitating lies from the Republican party’s impressive propaganda machine.
Trump is as anti free speech as you can get. There’s no debating this fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Anyone that is regurgitating the lines you are is doing so in bad faith: at best, you’re being willfully ignorant.
