Right there in the first article:

> There was no immediate indication of Russian involvement in the release of emails that the Post obtained, but its general thrust mirrors a narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies have described as part of an active Russian disinformation effort aimed at the 2020 election.

So the only proof that it comes from Russia is basically "that's the kind of thing the Russians would do." Aren't you spreading disinformation yourself by claiming that it is Russian disinformation?

Particularly, claiming Russian collusion the last time did not turn out to be true, but the Media jumped on this narrative. Let's not do it again.

This has been repeatedly debunked. Crowdstrike, who was hired for the security audit, states very explicitly that their IR team had proof that COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR had breached the network.[0]

> To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”

0: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

OP is talking about collusion and the years of investigations and other nonsense.

You're talking about an ineffective hack that's used for scaremongering, that was caught and had little to no effect on the out come of the election.

There were extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Even the (bipartisan) Senate report on this states that much. There is nothing nonsense about it.

No, the intelligence agencies already have said this is a Russian disinfo campaign and the Post should be mocked and shunned for knowingly propagating it.

https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/131658513181811507...

What was the "disinformation" exactly?

YouTube has spent the summer censoring doctors because their views didn't match the WHO. The WHO has changed its own views so much that it's now contradicted itself many times, showing how terribly naive Google's policies are on this. Google never used to be naive, but clearly, times have changed.

Unfortunately this is 100% true.

The real problem is that YouTube inexplicably chose to base its public health "ground truth" on WHO guidelines, when as a US company their appropriate source would have been the CDC. The two were often in conflict, particularly with regard to civilian usage of masks.

The WHO spent a lot of time being wrong -- or, at best, confusing -- and a lot of people got sick unnecessarily as a result.

"disinformation" seems to be information that advances an unpopular narrative now. The latest newspeak for the feeble of mind.

No. If there is damage done to United States, then it happens with the hands of people who suggest that undermining US tradition ( and constitution ) is the way to go. The will of the people to accept an invisible tyrant, who will allow only acceptable thoughts and punish wrongthink is terrifying and those clamor for it do more damage than any foreign terrorist could dream of.

Twitter, FB et al made a mistake ( calculated or otherwise ) and it is now hard to argue in good faith that tech companies are neutral arbiters.

To address your specific claim, if you showed me, say, RT post prior to yesterday that said what NY post posted, you would have a point. Instead, you have claims from Biden campaign staff and thanks to FB, Twitter, you now have a perceived bias in tech community that diminishes credibility of all those publications.

The fact that you seem to suggest that more like bias is needed, is, and I put it mildly, counter productive.

The story is already in full swing streisand effect mode.

edit: corrected some prepositions

No, there does not need to be more censorship. You should realize by now the Russian boogeyman narrative has no power anymore. Not everything that favors Trump is a Russian initiative. Far from it.

Your bias is clear for all to see.

> Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target

^ This is the actual disinformation.

Amusing you're citing the NYT.

Their coverage in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion did more damage to this country, Her military, and the rest of the world than some mean tweets or made up BS about Russia. Should we ban the NYT, too?