[dcjones]

There is compelling evidence from serious sources that Russia spreads propaganda and misinformation, but that doesn't let PropOrNot off the hook, nor WaPo for giving them a platform.

It's a sleazy, amateurish operation. Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720). "McCarthyite" may be hyperbolic, but smearing leftists or those critical of war and imperialism as loyal to our "enemies" is very much in the tradition of McCarthyism. It's ugly stuff, and it's depressing to see start to become mainstream again.

[hackuser]

> It's a sleazy, amateurish operation.

If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence.

> Look how they accuse sites critical of regime change in Syria as supporters of Assad (https://twitter.com/propornot/status/802095838965022720)

I don't see anything wrong with that tweet, which doesn't say that opponents of regime change are Assad supporters (EDIT: though it implies complicity). First, the tweets it responds to:

1) Rudolf E. Havenstein ‏@RudyHavenstein Nov 24: The one common denominator in the PropOrNot @WashingtonPost "fake news" list is opposition to disastrous neo-Con military interventions.

2) Rudolf E. Havenstein ‏@RudyHavenstein Nov 25: Obviously @NatCounterPunch and NakedCaptalism (and other sites PropOrNot listed) are not pro-Trump, but they are anti-war. @washingtonpost

And then the tweet itself:

3) PropOrNot ID Service @propornot: @RudyHavenstein @NatCounterPunch @washingtonpost They're not anti-Putin/Assad/etc-wars, though! They love those

Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).

[dcjones]

> Sounds like a good, fair point to me - if true (which I don't know).

"They love war when it's propagated by Assad or Putin," isn't a remotely fair or true assessment of those sites, which is why I called it sleazy. Criticism of a particular intervention (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq) doesn't make you loyal to the other side (e.g. communist, baathist). Implying such is a means of silencing dissent.

[wallace_f]

>If I still believed The Intercept article, I'd agree. But after reading the Wash Post article myself, I found The Intercept was deceitful and don't trust anything in it. I'd need to (and would like to) see other evidence

The fact here is that the WaPo article cites Wikileaks as "fake news." That should tell you who not to trust, if it doesn't already scare you enough.