I've tried explaining to a few people that it's 4chan and you can't take it seriously, but they're convinced that these posts are real.
I've tried explaining to a few people that it's 4chan and you can't take it seriously, but they're convinced that these posts are real.
"/pol/ is winning because it's funnier than the people that despise it, it's that simple. Being authoritarian isn't funny. Tumblr, leddit, they're funny like a commercial is funny, they can be clever, they can be witty, but they'll never be gut-laugh, -holy shit- funny, because they never confront anything they're not supposed to, they never color outside the lines. They talk like they're resisting something, but all they do is agree with each other. They slay the sacred cows they've been conditioned to hate, and they ignore the elephants in the room they're conditioned not to see, and they'll always be like that because they're clever, educated pussies.
/pol/ is full of angry racist conspiracy theorists, but it's fucking hilarious. /pol/ might not always tell you the truth, but it will tell you the closest thing to an honest truth it can see, and it will laugh at you for being offended by it. The fact that /pol/ is starting to influence 4chan in general means that the sacred cows we're slaying are actually sacred, and people are laughing in spite of themselves. It's stupid and weird and it's too simplistic and old-fashioned to be true, but you're laughing anyways.
That's how it begins."
I think what a lot of people don't get about /pol/'s influence in the last year is it's mechanism. It is easy to browse the site as an outsider and think it is just shitposting 9000, with no real influence outside. However /pol/ unconsciously and without formal direction has an extremely effective strategy for disseminating information.
Once the essence of some information has been distilled users start disseminating it to the 'normies' via Reddit and Twitter. Twitter is where the real influence comes as they inevitably target journalists in large numbers. As most know, journalists and politicians are extremely engaged in Twitter. Stories frequently then cross the barrier into the mainstream.
Targeting of journalists and politicians, largely but not always via Twitter, is where most of the huge power is derived. People targeted don't necessarily have the internet experience to realise when these things are directed. A lot of what most of them see is a flurry of regular public concern which needs to be addressed.
When a story from /pol/ reaches the mainstream, it goes into a glorious frenzy. It is a powerful feeling when something you have created/discovered and disseminated in a 4chan thread becomes international news because of the boards collective action.
Summarised: when a very large group of people with political leanings on a story/topic informally organise, the effort can take the view mainstream. important to note is the demographic includes a diverse group of users who are highly skilled in programming, social media and politics.
edit: If I was a highly placed politician and wanted to disseminate secret information without attribution, I would run it through the tumbler that is 4chan.
Can't find a better source. But this was the second time RuAF bombed the rebles camp after third party analysis (might be a coincidence ofc). There was a different image with Russian MoD's report on the matter.
[1] http://www.vocativ.com/326039/how-one-4chan-board-is-trying-...
I don't think you will be able to find anything better than that to "prove" it happened.
[1] http://wayback.archive-it.org/3649/20130422194045/http://www...
It was a surreal experience, and it showed both the strengths and weaknesses of crowdsourced tweets as "news". You get a lot of info, about how people think and feel but the facts being thrown about can be faulty and need to be confirmed independently. It wasn't until the unfortunate events in Ferguson a year and a half later than a similar kind and intensity of social media coverage ensued.
US intelligence is not always as rigorous, either, don't get me wrong, but the Russians in Syria seem to have very loose definitions of what qualifies as a target.
1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/18/did-the-u-s...