Here is something which pertains to harm.
Naked Capitalism just got compared to Fappy the masturbation dolphin!
With respect to the list appearing after, I guess my question is how did the WaPo find PorN and why did it include them in its piece at all? Who are they to be considered experts? But I also question whether you are right about them not seeing the content. Seems ambiguous to me.
This is how the Post described them.
Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns. (Update: The report came out on Saturday).
Except PorN are anonymous so none of their claims can be verified. What kind of reporter takes the word of an anonymous group he has never heard of and who provide no evidence, and then gives it prominence in a piece on propaganda! The WaPo piece itself says they referred to their “work” with the journalist so it’s not as if the author didn’t know they were going to release a report. But if he didn’t know what it would contain why did he write this in the original piece?
PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million
At the very least it’s shoddy journalism. At worst it was a hit piece.
