[hanshan]

>The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,”

>“Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections.

Sounds like Don Quixote is fighting the internet now. Unless you just shut it down how is it possible to not have world wide "interference" on the world wide web? Perhaps we need to think about how the instantaneous global communications network is obsolescing the concept of the nation state which was formed as a result of the printing press.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gutenberg_Galaxy

>Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious, and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us.

That sounds like a fitting description of mass media/news corporations everywhere.

[abowlofpetunias]

Thanks for your genuine opinion, 4-day-old account in a heavily bombarded thread.

[pluto9]

From the comment guidelines [1]:

> Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data.

Also, your own account is all of 40 days old and you have a grand total of 8 comments, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[RIMR]

Wow, when a foreign government tries to influence our elections, you handwave it away, but when American journalists weigh in on politics, suddenly they're being "adversarial".

Think long and hard about what you're saying here. You're dismissing foreign interference, but critisizing domestic political involvement.

The key difference here is that Russia isn't the United States and has no say in our policies, while American journalists are citizens and voters who have a societal duty to participate the democracy. When the former gets involved in an election, we call it "foreign interference", when the latter gets involved we call it "democracy".

So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?

[hanshan]

>So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?

That's a false dichotomy which implies you missed my point. There is no such thing as sovereign democracy in a globalized world with omnipresence and instantaneous communication.