[linkregister]

I responded to this without seeing the full context of your posts. It appears that the crux of your position is that dispute of Russian responsibility for Shadow Brokers is likely propaganda, and jwtadvice is advancing that position.

I think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Shadow Brokers are Russian-aligned if not actual Russian agents. That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda.

A reasonable person could be unconvinced about this conclusion because almost no evidence has been revealed about the SB dump. Even U.S. officials haven't confirmed definitively [1] that the SB are Russian agents, though they say SB probably are.

Please note that jwtadvice didn't dispute that the Guccifer 2.0 actor was a Russia-aligned actor.

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S...

[hackuser]

> That doesn't mean that public criticism of this is propaganda.

I completely agree. The problem is, and my point was, how does one distinguish a reasonable person speaking in good faith from propaganda, which by its nature is intended to appear as a reasonable person speaking in good faith - and which most often is spread not directly by propagandists but by reasonable people who trust the good faith of the propagandist?

Anyway, I think we talked about it plenty above; I just thought your well-made points deserved a response here.