Need to see the ads. At this point, why should we trust The Facebook. Let us see what the Russians fed us. How much was fake news, and how much opinion based material parading as news?
4
Facebook should disclose to their user base which ads and content were generated by the Russian trolls. I'd be interested in knowing if I were targeted. It would also be enlightening to anyone who may have "liked" or shared these posts.
2
Seriously thinking of dumping FACEBOOK & phone app. Difficult to feel safe, secure or any bit of privacy...do not trust it or LINKEDIN anymore
3
I know there's not one person who'll admit that a political add would change their minds during an election. But as soon a WikiLeaks comes out with some non-published information, it's law. I know people who were on the Secret Service team in charge of protecting the Clinton's and I've heard the stories about her and it's not pretty. But then you throw in the emails, Benghazi and their foundation and turn them into lies, the ship just took one across the bow. Think about it folks, if not you, then who.
I certainly hope Twitter investigates as well!
Here and I thought "progressives" were all about "globalism". So what if Russians express their opinion through facebook adds?
2
A great reason not to get so involved in social media politics. Friending should mean just that ant not the presumption that anyone wants to hear political views because who knows who's in the mix!
1
When it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of other Nations no one can hold a candle to the USA who has an um-matched history of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, all over this World, and now they are whining about who paid for some political ad. Please, let me up.
3
I think the barrage of what's been revealed as fake news did contribute to the general partisan nastiness of the campaign. There seemed to be no discussion of issues; "liberal" and "compromise", even "bipartisan" became insults, and the over-the-top hostile ads dominating my Facebook feed certainly didn't help.
1
I do find it disturbing and distressing that Russia influenced, or may have influenced, the election.
But is freedom of speech not a basic human right? Yes, there is a law against foreign governments trying to influence our elections, but is our government necessarily doing something wrong if we try to influence the elections of some other country? If we think that there is a fundamental reason why citizens should be accorded freedom of speech, why doesn't it apply to everybody?
But is freedom of speech not a basic human right? Yes, there is a law against foreign governments trying to influence our elections, but is our government necessarily doing something wrong if we try to influence the elections of some other country? If we think that there is a fundamental reason why citizens should be accorded freedom of speech, why doesn't it apply to everybody?
2
Speech is not the same aa Influence. You're actually arguing that money should control influence.
The burden is on you to state why the rich should have more influence.
The burden is on you to state why the rich should have more influence.
1
BotMark:Because they are not citizens--pretty simple actually. They should have free speech in their own elections.
Maybe instead of blaming fake news, folks should ask why Americans lack (reject?) basic critical thinking skills and why president came down to two of the most despised candidates ever.
5
I agree that Americans need to think more critically when they read. However Hilary Clinton was not despised until people started spreading lies about her. No matter who runs for president, people will make up lies ( e.g. "not born in this country") about them.
1
That is not what Facebook said in a press statement. They said it could be ghost accounts of Russian origin. They could be Iraseli. Saudi. The UK. Chinese or Nigerian. Or they may have been purchased by the SLPC or other US special interests that specialize in synthetic racial agitation. In that regard they fit the profile of post-ACORN operatives and backers. The Editors seem a little eager here to bypass certain journalistic protocol.
2
As long as we allow people to buy advertising space for money, it will continue. Truth isn't really free or expensive but sometimes hard to convey. People bought ads and other people believed those ads. Information age continues to be interesting.
1
LOL! Half the comments here are from trolls. Talk about fake accounts...
4
Has a political ad ever changed your vote? Didn't think so.
5
Great point. If nothing else, they (the ads) reenforce our vote. Which means they influenced our vote if not changed it. Meaning, if enough ads were 'anti' someone's vote it could change it.
1
The Idea That Fake News Influenced the Election is ‘Crazy’
http://fox40.com/2016/11/10/mark-zuckerberg-the-idea-that-fake-news-infl...
http://fox40.com/2016/11/10/mark-zuckerberg-the-idea-that-fake-news-infl...
1
Great. You're siting Zuckerberg, who has a vested interest in NOT being the blame, as a source. Next, you'll be siting the pres.
3
How do we make a distinction between influencing an election and just talking about issues?
4
If the talker is secretly working for a foreign government and talking to Americans about issues of great weight in American electoral politics we can presume the aim to influence the outcome of elections.
Facts!
For example I read something on Foxnews yesterday about obesity in the US broken down by states. Many comments were about how this was a problem for liberals, but when listed from fattest to leanest almost all the Trump (red) states were at the top of the list (WVA). So the discussion was all spin, no facts. Easy to see who has there head in the sand in that situation. Sort of like the climate "debate".
For example I read something on Foxnews yesterday about obesity in the US broken down by states. Many comments were about how this was a problem for liberals, but when listed from fattest to leanest almost all the Trump (red) states were at the top of the list (WVA). So the discussion was all spin, no facts. Easy to see who has there head in the sand in that situation. Sort of like the climate "debate".
1
Well, the fake ads from Russian sources were propaganda. Many people can't tell. This is why we need laws and fines to protect democracy from this recurring.
So what? Still think the Russians defeated Hillary and not the American voter?
4
No I don't, but you can't tell me Trump didn't know about can you.
2
Trump defeated Clinton by a small margin in toss-up north central states. So if the Russians only had a small impact with their meddling, it might have been enough. But even if the Russians had no impact this time, shouldn't we fear for the future of our electoral system if the Russians are working to refine and improve their manipulation efforts?
2
It now appears that FB claims to have more US followers than there are US citizens. It`s a money maker as the cost of FB ads are tied to the number of "users".
So as long as it makes money for FB why worry, eh Mr. Zuckerman ?
So as long as it makes money for FB why worry, eh Mr. Zuckerman ?
2
Those darn Russians. Without them we'd never have known that HRC lied about Benghazi being a spontaneous attack (with mortars) because of an anti-Muslim film. Heck, without Vlad we'd have known that HRC set up her own e-mail server against policy, potentially compromised classified docs and lied about it. Then destroyed 30k e-mails that were under subpoena.
Shoot -- we'd have never known that HRC didn't do much as SofS or that she proposed to carry on Obama's policies -- and that people might not like that. We wouldn't know that somehow she lost to Obama in 2008 (must have been because of Russia). Who would have thought -- without Russia's help -- that HRC couldn't beat (without a little help from her friends in the dem establishment) a socialist challenger for the dem nomination.
And w/o Russia we'd have never known about Bill's flings or HRC's attacks on his "girl friends." Or that HRC couldn't do a thing about health care when given the chance.
Or that there were some pretty funny dealings down there in Arkansas.
Heck, I guess the Russians told HRC it would be a good idea to call half of Trump's supporters deplorables. And I suppose the Russians probably stole her campaign calendar or told her it would be a good idea to campaign in CA or NY rather than swing states.
Those darn Russians.
Shoot -- we'd have never known that HRC didn't do much as SofS or that she proposed to carry on Obama's policies -- and that people might not like that. We wouldn't know that somehow she lost to Obama in 2008 (must have been because of Russia). Who would have thought -- without Russia's help -- that HRC couldn't beat (without a little help from her friends in the dem establishment) a socialist challenger for the dem nomination.
And w/o Russia we'd have never known about Bill's flings or HRC's attacks on his "girl friends." Or that HRC couldn't do a thing about health care when given the chance.
Or that there were some pretty funny dealings down there in Arkansas.
Heck, I guess the Russians told HRC it would be a good idea to call half of Trump's supporters deplorables. And I suppose the Russians probably stole her campaign calendar or told her it would be a good idea to campaign in CA or NY rather than swing states.
Those darn Russians.
5
Well we know one thing Ralphie, nothing said to you will change your mind, will it Raphie.
5
Fake-book, we call it in my house.
7
3 points:
#1 Kenya's elections were annulled over irregularities. Is our democracy less functioning than Kenya's?
#2 Trump invited Russia to interfere last fall. Why was he not disqualified for treason THEN?
#3 What took Facebook this long?
#1 Kenya's elections were annulled over irregularities. Is our democracy less functioning than Kenya's?
#2 Trump invited Russia to interfere last fall. Why was he not disqualified for treason THEN?
#3 What took Facebook this long?
14
I'm sorry what in this Times article points to an US election irregularity?
"#2 Trump invited Russia to interfere last fall. Why was he not disqualified for treason THEN?"
Well, there's no evidence Russia interfered, or colluded with Trump, that's why.
"#2 Trump invited Russia to interfere last fall. Why was he not disqualified for treason THEN?"
Well, there's no evidence Russia interfered, or colluded with Trump, that's why.
1
So the Russians donated millions to the Clinton foundation and then Mrs. Clinton gave 20% of America's Uranium to them not a story. The Russians spend $100,000 on Facebook ads that don't mention any candidate's names huge story!
6
In most cases, it's hard to connect the dots.
However, in the case of Trumprussia........... its hard to SEPARATE the dots.
However, in the case of Trumprussia........... its hard to SEPARATE the dots.
10
"However, in the case of Trumprussia........... its hard to SEPARATE the dots."
It is like the famous Russian nesting dolls. Like pealing an onion. In the case of Trump & the GOP it makes one cry doing it.
It is like the famous Russian nesting dolls. Like pealing an onion. In the case of Trump & the GOP it makes one cry doing it.
1
In most cases.....it's hard to connect the dots.
However, in the case of Trumprussia........... its hard to SEPARATE the dots.
However, in the case of Trumprussia........... its hard to SEPARATE the dots.
In campaigns that spent nearly $2 billion combined, $100K is a rounding error. More was probably spent on hamburgers and parking tickets. Zzzzz....
1
But, but, "it's Russia, or fake news", and next month with Hillary Clinton's book drops we'll be back to "it's Bernie's fault".
1
This isn't news. Curious how the news recycles itself. This was made clear several months ago in a story on MSNBC.
1
The news is that FB just admit it, I guess for the sake of their stock value.
I absolutely sure that this is some sort of "revenge porn" of Democrats against Trump after their embarrassing defeat on elections.
For example Saudi Arabia being a center of Wahhabism - radical Islam (this is words of NY Times) is doing intensive lobbing in Washington (This is NY times words as well) and its is absolutely fine, nobody sees nothing wrong about it.
So what is wrong for Russia trying to influence American public opinion and support people who are friendly or at least neutral towards Russia. All these USA/Russia public opinion is just media hype, most of Americans don't care about Russia as long as media does not care. Russia was never at war with America, but was an ally several times. There is lot of cultural similarities, both countries are mostly based on civic society and etc. Russia is not interested in failure of USA, if American civic society collapses, Russian civic society will collapse as well, so Russia is not interested in USA collapse at all. The only problem is "corporate" wars, but they mostly go outside of American or Russian borders, so there is nothing wrong between nations at all.
American transnational media blobs like Google, Facebook don;t care about news residence at all. They aggregate all media content into unified search from around the globe, so source of news in English originate from everywhere. So Russia contributes as well
If tomorrow mass media say that Russia is friend, nobody will pay attention to that and will accept it.
For example Saudi Arabia being a center of Wahhabism - radical Islam (this is words of NY Times) is doing intensive lobbing in Washington (This is NY times words as well) and its is absolutely fine, nobody sees nothing wrong about it.
So what is wrong for Russia trying to influence American public opinion and support people who are friendly or at least neutral towards Russia. All these USA/Russia public opinion is just media hype, most of Americans don't care about Russia as long as media does not care. Russia was never at war with America, but was an ally several times. There is lot of cultural similarities, both countries are mostly based on civic society and etc. Russia is not interested in failure of USA, if American civic society collapses, Russian civic society will collapse as well, so Russia is not interested in USA collapse at all. The only problem is "corporate" wars, but they mostly go outside of American or Russian borders, so there is nothing wrong between nations at all.
American transnational media blobs like Google, Facebook don;t care about news residence at all. They aggregate all media content into unified search from around the globe, so source of news in English originate from everywhere. So Russia contributes as well
If tomorrow mass media say that Russia is friend, nobody will pay attention to that and will accept it.
3
Facebook is one huge ad multiplied by millions. Why should anyone be surprised? Facebook is as amoral and unethical as Putin and the Russian bots.
3
May have?
Sounds horrible : Russians trolls influencing US election. But don't we run a similar operation in Russia ? After all, Regime Change is US.
4
GOP equals KGB plus FSB.
Trump plus Putin equals President of the United States.
Who knew?
Trump plus Putin equals President of the United States.
Who knew?
2
Shame on Facebook... they lied about this for months on end then copped to it... probably because it was about the become public knowledge... sort of like Donnie Jr. releasing the emails with the Russians the day before they were to be made public.
1
So accounts associated with Russia (a well known source of spam etc) put up those "Who do you think will win" or "How much do you hate so-and-so" and "click here is you support XYZ!" and now this is proof of russian meddling?
Baaah.
Baaah.
The $100,000 worth of ads would amount to 0.001 percent of the estimated $6.8 billion spent on advertising during the 2016 elections. However, not all the $100,000 was illegal. The New York Times article points out that “most of the 3,000 ads did not refer to particular candidates but instead focused on divisive social issues such as race, gay rights, gun control and immigration." These types of ads do not violate federal election law even if placed and paid for by foreign nationals or foreign governments.
1
Targeted ads beg the question of how the targets were picked. What guided Russia to the targets that were chosen? Who guided Russia?
Everyone seems to be giving Facebook a pass on this issue. Why? Many more people get their "news" now from social media not newspapers and television. Why doesn't Facebook even know who is buying ads? Why do they take virtually no responsibility for the content on their site? When election time rolls around again, there is a huge vunerability here. It is time that there were some constraints on social media companies. I closed my FB account. Who wants to be surveilled 24/7 and stalked by advertisers? Who wants "news" posted that is lies and propaganga? Who wants to see their children lose their skills at face to face communication? Facebook is one of the harmful companies on the planet.
5
Because no one cares about $100,000 in silly adverts that didn't mention Hillary Clinton on FB.
talk about a "cautionary tale". to all social media/gadget addicts: lift up your heads occasionally. and don't believe what you read or the "information" you receive. and think before you "zing". according to facebook, more than one billion "zingers" out there--more than enough to cause catastrophe.
2
Some day, someone will sit down and prepare a detailed and objective list of the "pros" and "cons" of social media. I hope that heading the list of "cons" would be the use of Facebook, Twitter, the Internet and other social media to spread lies and disinformation to the point that no one really knows what is true or untrue. I believe we are at that point today. And, by the way, the Luddite in me believes the list of "cons" will be substantially longer than the "pros."
3
More likely the "ads" were used to phish for something. You place an ad on the Internet to get people to click on it for more information. Would be interesting to see what they actually said to see who the targets were.
5
That may be true for goods or services, but political ads are typically used for promoting or assailing a political candidate or issue. An ad on gun control, for example, might indicate that Hillary was going to take all of your guns, even if she had no political agenda to do so.
5
We seem to be handing the keys to the car to the Russians. Aside from FB propaganda, which will be there in more or less the same form without Russian help and continue to be consumed willingly and non-critically, the more important question is just what are we doing about our election systems?
That is a about as critical a problem as I can think of for the US, yet from most accounts I have read, there seems to be little that is being done now and no overall plan being discussed to change our patchwork system to minimize breaches and corrupted results in the future. We are talking about the system we use to elect representatives to run the country. Setting aside the Koch brothers and Mercer family and other big money interests for a moment (wish we could permanently), this is the process where it all starts in a representative democracy.
Apparently, we are so hung up on states rights as they affect the choice, implementation, and management of each election system that we appear to be content to just let things ride as they are now. I'm guessing that the coming assaults will be an order of magnitude greater than 2015/16. The system is heavily flawed, but there are effective models in place now, such as the one used in OR. I'm sure there are others better than what we have now.
Are we to simply allow the status quo to continue? FB may be more important to a huge number of people, but if we can't secure our voting system, then what kind of country is this/will it be?
That is a about as critical a problem as I can think of for the US, yet from most accounts I have read, there seems to be little that is being done now and no overall plan being discussed to change our patchwork system to minimize breaches and corrupted results in the future. We are talking about the system we use to elect representatives to run the country. Setting aside the Koch brothers and Mercer family and other big money interests for a moment (wish we could permanently), this is the process where it all starts in a representative democracy.
Apparently, we are so hung up on states rights as they affect the choice, implementation, and management of each election system that we appear to be content to just let things ride as they are now. I'm guessing that the coming assaults will be an order of magnitude greater than 2015/16. The system is heavily flawed, but there are effective models in place now, such as the one used in OR. I'm sure there are others better than what we have now.
Are we to simply allow the status quo to continue? FB may be more important to a huge number of people, but if we can't secure our voting system, then what kind of country is this/will it be?
9
Cyber espionage and attacks are intrinsically more lethal and efficient than traditional methods. Since it's nearly impossible to put all the dots together and, for a few hundred thousands, you can bring an empire to its knees without shooting one bullet. Therefore, investing heavily in education and cyber security should be our priority (not a stupid wall).
4
Politics aside - it's a real shame that Russians/Republicans have created an entire industry for themselves, vandalizing the internet this way. Beyond that, it's a real disgrace that they ever felt like that's a good way to spend even one minute of their time.
They could take a class, volunteer at a VA hospital or refugee center, read a book, visit family... but instead, they spend their time doing THIS. That's a perfect example of what "pathetic" means.
They could take a class, volunteer at a VA hospital or refugee center, read a book, visit family... but instead, they spend their time doing THIS. That's a perfect example of what "pathetic" means.
2
Same old Russia nonsense - as always, we are not told what actual law was broken, and who the actual perpetrators are.
The truth is, this kind of issue sponsored advertising is highly protected in the Untied States, regardless of who is doing it. It's called free speech. Does our Constitution say that free speech rights are available only to U.S. citizens?
Here is the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you see anything there that says "U.S. citizens only"?
The truth is, this kind of issue sponsored advertising is highly protected in the Untied States, regardless of who is doing it. It's called free speech. Does our Constitution say that free speech rights are available only to U.S. citizens?
Here is the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you see anything there that says "U.S. citizens only"?
4
Sounds like you think it's okay for a hostile foreign government to undermine ours because it's technically legal. What about morality?
You'll need to look beyond the Constitution to find the laws regarding colluding with other countries on our elections.
Exactly how is this different than Mexico continually stumping for their illegal immigrant exports in our country? Mexico has attempted to influence our nation's immigration policy on a non-stop basis for the past several decades, yet nobody accuses it of "foreign interference". And I am sure they have spent a great deal more in currency and manpower on it than Russia ever did on the 2016 presidential election. Or different from China influencing our trade/investment policies overwhelming in its favor to the great detriment of US citizens, an economic disaster from which the 90% on the lower income rungs will never recover?
Oh yeah.....the difference is Republicans versus Democrats. Forget it.....foreign influence on behalf of Democratic candidates/issues is apparently okay with everybody around here. But a tenuous Russian connection to a $100k spend on stupid Facebook ads, and everybody is up in arms and demanding new investigations. What a joke.
Oh yeah.....the difference is Republicans versus Democrats. Forget it.....foreign influence on behalf of Democratic candidates/issues is apparently okay with everybody around here. But a tenuous Russian connection to a $100k spend on stupid Facebook ads, and everybody is up in arms and demanding new investigations. What a joke.
3
The difference is huge, catrunning. It's about legality first of all. It is illegal for politicians to collude with foreign powers to influence an election in any way. The lobbying you mention that Mexico does is perfectly legal and is done by every country. They all have lobbyists attempting to get the ear of our government to plead their cases on everything from imports and exports to giant walls. You are comparing apples to oranges, no offense to the color of the POTUS there...
2
Maybe because the Russians don't have nuclear weapons? Could that be a reason we have more concern that the Russians interfered and influenced our election rather than the Mexican government? Just a thought....
Let's hope America remembers this when Mr. Zuckerberg runs for President. And we can only hope we are spared some of his sanctimony in the next year as well.
2
I guess Facebook found out they had a problem too late. One can now object to non-factual posts, but who reads the objections? However, once again we see a Russian hand in our elections. The Facebook complicity in spreading fake news was not the only one. Some punks in the Ukraine made a fortune spreading total lies about Hillary Clinton and profiting from the ads on their site. Our long election cycle and the money to be made from pandering to crazy people makes this kind of thing possible, but at least Facebook should not be involved in the promulgation of outright lies.
6
Have many other sites on Facebook need to be investigated for fraud, scams, and worse, by individuals and groups, and companies alike? It's not 100% Facebook's fault. With 2,000,000,000 clients and growing, there always be some bad apples in the bushel! But Facebook, first and foremost is the one responsible in the end.
1
Technically speaking, $100k in Facebook ads results in 16-24 unique views. (Inside joke for those on the inside of purchasing Facebook ads. You're welcome.)
2
Playing the victim again and again doesn't make the problem go away, which is the impotence of the DNC and the lack of fresh ideas and real, progressive candidates. When it is not Trump himself, then it is the Russians, Bernie Sanders, North Koreans and now the Facebook fake Russians.
2
Doesn't this news mean that we were all a victim?
1
What's clear is Facebook either has no clue about what goes on in its "revenue generator" ad operation, OR, more likely, the stream of constant denials ("it can't happen here"), in a failed attempt to claim non-involvement with russian hackers, ran into cold, hard, undeniable facts of just that involvement, proven irrefutably by our intelligence agencies.
The cynical among us now view Zuckerberg as a serial liar.
The cynical among us now view Zuckerberg as a serial liar.
3
Facebook-- a pawn in a Russian game. Veteran DARPA folks knew social media was lame, a product of a generation, and shunned participating in it. Once FB claims they discovered it, of course you ask why'd it take any while at all. Zero security in a generation that doesn't believe they need it.
2
Facebook has an obligation to its users to weed out the trollbots and organizations that are using multiple identities to post. The same is true for Google and other search engines. Quit letting these organizations dictate what is on top of the search feed. It is making your brand unreliable.
1
FACEBOOK===SHAME SHAME SHAME
4
WHY are we just finding out about this now? FACEBOOK said nothing, did nothing until months after the fact, they got caught. They just took the money and tracked the data. What a scam.
27
They focused on divisive social issues? Are we sure it's not the NYT that is being written about?
2
Some extreme right wing commenters here believe women's suffrage is a divisive social issue.
1
Big tech companies benefit from Section 230 of Communications and Decency Act (CDA) which exempts them from liability for many types of illegal content or actions by their users. In the past tech companies did not have the money or legal bandwidth to hold them responsible.
Now they have both in spades! They claim they are a mere conduit like telephone wires. Yet they aggressively comb personal data making billions on it.
This loophole is worth billions to Facebook and its time the US
stop subsidizing big tech. Facebook's profiteering during the election was reprehensible.
Now they have both in spades! They claim they are a mere conduit like telephone wires. Yet they aggressively comb personal data making billions on it.
This loophole is worth billions to Facebook and its time the US
stop subsidizing big tech. Facebook's profiteering during the election was reprehensible.
9
Many may argue that the ''Russian interference issues'' as just a dog and pony show. And indeed it can be, until a smoking gun evolves unequivocally. Although the fact, that Trump is the POTUS, is quite tenable, Comey's Hillary email release, his firing by Trump due to presumed Russian connections, and their influence on the 2016 elections are some of the flimsy reasons for Hillary's miserable loss. She did not campaign well enough in the rust belt states, and many Obama democrats jumped ship to vote for Trump. Some 5 million democrats simply stayed home, owing to Hillary's notoriety.
Mueller's investigation, of Trump's veracity, may not seem as apocryphal as many Trump's acolytes would have everybody believe. Unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Trump willfully perpetrated something, detrimental to the nation, it might be an upheaval task to impeach him. One reckons Trump's case has not reached Nixonian proportions, just as yet. But his presidency so far has been abysmally atrocious, as corroborated by his egregious poll numbers, if they are any guidance. In Trump's lexicography, anything that berates Trump will be deemed as fake.
On the contrary, the Democrats have not spearheaded their 2018 force majeure to win elections, senatorial and/or gubernatorial. The GOP themselves are facing a Sisyphean task of winning many voters' hearts. It still seems like a guessing game, to say the least.
Mueller's investigation, of Trump's veracity, may not seem as apocryphal as many Trump's acolytes would have everybody believe. Unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Trump willfully perpetrated something, detrimental to the nation, it might be an upheaval task to impeach him. One reckons Trump's case has not reached Nixonian proportions, just as yet. But his presidency so far has been abysmally atrocious, as corroborated by his egregious poll numbers, if they are any guidance. In Trump's lexicography, anything that berates Trump will be deemed as fake.
On the contrary, the Democrats have not spearheaded their 2018 force majeure to win elections, senatorial and/or gubernatorial. The GOP themselves are facing a Sisyphean task of winning many voters' hearts. It still seems like a guessing game, to say the least.
Comey didn't release Hillary's emails.
She did not campaign well enough in the rust belt states, and many Obama democrats jumped ship to vote for Trump. Some 5 million democrats simply stayed home, owing to Hillary's notoriety.
Correct.
She did not campaign well enough in the rust belt states, and many Obama democrats jumped ship to vote for Trump. Some 5 million democrats simply stayed home, owing to Hillary's notoriety.
Correct.
I guess all that hiding under my desks was for naught.
The Cold War is over and the Russians won without firing a shot, let alone a missile.
The Cold War is over and the Russians won without firing a shot, let alone a missile.
5
Ultimately, nothing meaningful as far as fairness will come of this. If there's a "crime" here it's gullibility. Ultimately, the responsibility is on the voter to discern truth from baloney.
2
What about those occasions (now almost daily) when the baloney is coming directly from the so-called president's mouth?
1
It's sad that we have a political party that is attractive to our enemies.
8
The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming is a 1966 American comedy film directed by Norman Jewison.
A Russian submarine called Спрут ("Octopus") draws too close to the New England coast one morning when its captain wants to take a good look at America and runs aground on a sandbar near a fictional Gloucester Island off the coast of Cape Ann or Cape Cod, Massachusetts...
Rather than radio for help and risk an embarrassing international incident, the captain sends a nine-man landing party, headed by his zampolit (Political Officer) Lieutenant Yuri Rozanov (Alan Arkin), to find a motor launch to help free the submarine from the bar.
The men arrive at the house of Walt Whittaker (Carl Reiner), a vacationing playwright from New York City. Whittaker is eager to get his wife Elspeth (Eva Marie Saint) and two children off the island now that summer is over.
Pete tells his dad that "Russians with machine guns" dressed in black uniforms are near the house, but Walt is met by the men who identify themselves as Norwegian fishermen.
Walt buys this, and to teach Pete a lesson about judging others, asks if they are "Russians with machine guns", which startles Rozanov into admitting that they are Russians and pulling a gun on Walt. Rozanov promises no harm to the Whittakers if they hand over their station wagon and provide information on the military and police forces of their island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russians_Are_Coming,_the_Russians_Are_...
So there-
A Russian submarine called Спрут ("Octopus") draws too close to the New England coast one morning when its captain wants to take a good look at America and runs aground on a sandbar near a fictional Gloucester Island off the coast of Cape Ann or Cape Cod, Massachusetts...
Rather than radio for help and risk an embarrassing international incident, the captain sends a nine-man landing party, headed by his zampolit (Political Officer) Lieutenant Yuri Rozanov (Alan Arkin), to find a motor launch to help free the submarine from the bar.
The men arrive at the house of Walt Whittaker (Carl Reiner), a vacationing playwright from New York City. Whittaker is eager to get his wife Elspeth (Eva Marie Saint) and two children off the island now that summer is over.
Pete tells his dad that "Russians with machine guns" dressed in black uniforms are near the house, but Walt is met by the men who identify themselves as Norwegian fishermen.
Walt buys this, and to teach Pete a lesson about judging others, asks if they are "Russians with machine guns", which startles Rozanov into admitting that they are Russians and pulling a gun on Walt. Rozanov promises no harm to the Whittakers if they hand over their station wagon and provide information on the military and police forces of their island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russians_Are_Coming,_the_Russians_Are_...
So there-
I was a strong Sanders supporter and said so on my Facebook page. Right about the time it became clear that Clinton had clinched the nomination, I began to receive posts on my timeline containing stuff about Clinton that was so scurrilous even I was offended. I blocked most of the sites, but this kept happening throughout the rest of the campaign. I assume at least some of this stuff came from Russia. Facebook needs to be more careful about who it takes money from.
11
But how do you know the claims came from Russian sources?
The article says, "Most of the 3,000 ads did not refer to particular candidates but instead focused on divisive social issues such as race, gay rights, gun control and immigration, according to a post on Facebook by Alex Stamos, the company’s chief security officer."
MOST of the ads didn't mention a particular candidate. According to Rachel Maddow on her show last night (MSNBC 9 pm ET) those ads that did mention a candidate - including candidates in the targeted voting precincts in the supposed "deciding" states ARE criminal, as is any American who helped the Russians.
Let's go a little deeper. Bernie Sanders and his supporters KNEW the Russians hacked some of their facebook pages. They said nothing. Sanders is as complicit as The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren. A loud-mouthed, aging opportunist who saw this as his one time to become a national figure sold us out for his ego. He says he has "small donations" but had BIG financial backing with in-kind donations for advertising, his online presence and other campaign costs.
The media is, once again, having a heyday attacking the most qualified candidate to ever run to be President of OUR United States of America -
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton - and trying to sell us Sanders. Give it up boys and girls. Ms Rodham-Clinton has more courage than you will ever have combined.
My vote goes for California Governor Jerry Brown/Senator Elizabeth Warren if they run. I will never vote for Sanders. Ever.
MOST of the ads didn't mention a particular candidate. According to Rachel Maddow on her show last night (MSNBC 9 pm ET) those ads that did mention a candidate - including candidates in the targeted voting precincts in the supposed "deciding" states ARE criminal, as is any American who helped the Russians.
Let's go a little deeper. Bernie Sanders and his supporters KNEW the Russians hacked some of their facebook pages. They said nothing. Sanders is as complicit as The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren. A loud-mouthed, aging opportunist who saw this as his one time to become a national figure sold us out for his ego. He says he has "small donations" but had BIG financial backing with in-kind donations for advertising, his online presence and other campaign costs.
The media is, once again, having a heyday attacking the most qualified candidate to ever run to be President of OUR United States of America -
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton - and trying to sell us Sanders. Give it up boys and girls. Ms Rodham-Clinton has more courage than you will ever have combined.
My vote goes for California Governor Jerry Brown/Senator Elizabeth Warren if they run. I will never vote for Sanders. Ever.
14
I agree with you about Senator Sanders and have always felt this way. In his own way he is a bad as the man who is now our President -- thanks in large part to Senator Sanders. And, yes, should Governor Brown or Senator Warren run I would vote for either of them, although I am not too enthusiastic about Vice President Joe Biden running. I would like to see one of the rising stars in the Democratic Party run, and there are many -- Senator Kirsten Gillibrand-New York, Senator Chris Murphy-Connecticut, Representative Adam Schiff-California, Senator Kamala Harris-California, Senator Tammy Duckworth-Illinois, just to name a few.
3
Agree, Hilary was supremely qualified but unfortunately also the most distasteful candidate. It was a wash.
1
Seems like hysteria to me. With the US routinely involving itself in foreign elections--think Obama and Brexit or any number of regime change plots and invasions--it is hard not to see this as just another manifestation of American Exceptionalism. We can do it to them, but they can't do it to us.
Besides, if it were really so easy to buy an election, Hillary wouldn't have lost.
Besides, if it were really so easy to buy an election, Hillary wouldn't have lost.
8
Oh of course jrd, Mr Obama expressing his opinion in a video (openly, unambiguously) regarding Brexit is at the same level as trolls secretly trying to influence our election.
People are free to agree or disagree with Obama's opinion, but at least they weren't deceived. They weren't being manipulated by a foreign government hostile to the US and yet didn't know about it.
Tremendous difference
People are free to agree or disagree with Obama's opinion, but at least they weren't deceived. They weren't being manipulated by a foreign government hostile to the US and yet didn't know about it.
Tremendous difference
3
First Hillary won the popular vote, and second the Republicans have been spending millions of dollars on smear propaganda against her for two decades. Advertising works, it has fooled even intelligent people into making bad choices, and the Republicans were successful at that.
4
It wasn't GOP propaganda that Hillary Clinton had her own email server while running the State Department.
You try that in any big company, or non-profit, and you'll be fired.
You try that in any big company, or non-profit, and you'll be fired.
Why did it take Facebook months to finally come forward and admit the problem?
10
Just what is the problem?
There is a word for what Facebook did, whether knowingly on through lack of due diligence: treason.
11
So now it's facebooks fault Hillary lost? Will the excuses never end?
7
Profit over democracy?
7
Would the Transactional trump appear to make a deal with Democrats as a way to deflect escalating Russia investigation. Can he believe they'd back off if he threw them a few bones - on debt, DACA or tax reform ?
4
Why did it take Facebook so long to confirm this information? And why did Facebook officials deny it previously? Were Facebook employees involved with the effort to shape the election results? I would hope the investigation will now involve issuing subpoena those at Facebook, from Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to sales and programming staff members.
It seems to be that an American company like Facebook would be able to spot wrongdoing more readily than it did, and if it did and did nothing to report or stop it then it has much to answer for, including espionage and treason.
It seems to be that an American company like Facebook would be able to spot wrongdoing more readily than it did, and if it did and did nothing to report or stop it then it has much to answer for, including espionage and treason.
11
A very important story and further disturbing information about how the Russians tried to interfere with the 2016 election ... but what does the photo of the three individuals looking at their phones have to do with it?
Are they Facebook employees? Are they standing next to Facebook's offices? Are they supposed to be looking at Facebook on their phones? Ar ethey Russians agents? Or is the point that people see Internet ads when looking at their phones? No information is provided in the caption, so it's impossible to know.
Are they Facebook employees? Are they standing next to Facebook's offices? Are they supposed to be looking at Facebook on their phones? Ar ethey Russians agents? Or is the point that people see Internet ads when looking at their phones? No information is provided in the caption, so it's impossible to know.
4
You win the internet today. LOL! Excellent!
$100000 and a billion reposts by their trolls.
12
Have you seen the contents of the adverts? Do you have data on where they were directed?
1
Social media has become an instrument to be used by whomever, for whatever, and the results have delivered to us a tweeter president, addicted followers on facebook, and an uneducated public unable to separate fake from fact....think "alternative acts." Attention spans last as long as the latest sound bite, and the English language as we knew it is no longer being used. SO SAD.
13
The accompanying picture to this article tells it all - hypnotized millennials glued to their personal devices getting their "news" from FB.
Seriously, who does that?
I have NEVER once clicked a
news" link at Facebook...in fact I disabled their "news" feed as soon as I could figure out how.
That "fake news" from Facebook may have influenced the election is more FAKE NEWS from the dopey creators of the "fake news" narrative.
Seriously, who does that?
I have NEVER once clicked a
news" link at Facebook...in fact I disabled their "news" feed as soon as I could figure out how.
That "fake news" from Facebook may have influenced the election is more FAKE NEWS from the dopey creators of the "fake news" narrative.
5
$100,000 was able to take over the US.
Not bad.
Maybe they should be in charge.
Not bad.
Maybe they should be in charge.
10
Maybe they are?
2
$100 k is not all. They have figured out how use bots to game FB's and Twitter's and Google's algorithms with fake FB likes and shares, and fake Twitter retweets. So one small ad or posting is seen thousands and thousands of times, while trolls comment on them thousands of time to magnify their online presence even further. Want to fact check something? Google uses likes and shares and retweets as part of their algorithm. So if you google a subject such a sex scandal in in pizza parlor, fake articles that have been retweeted by Russian trolls come up on the first page of a Google search. So $100 k worth of fake news can be seen by millions of people, probably targeted by their participation in right leaning chat rooms, where they are repeated again. Brilliant. FB and Twitter and Google need to look for bot generated fake likes, fake shares and fake retweets, not just the original fake ad or posting.
16
How about people stop believing everything they read and see and take the time to investigate issues and make informed determinations about them? If not that's their problem.
7
Unfortunately, the result of this meddling is not only the problem of people who believe everything they read. Trump is everyone's problem now.
Kinda complicated! Stop believing anything you see or read: investigate issues without seeing or reading information. Make informed determinations without any information? Easy! I got it! Thanks!
With all the Clinton and Podesta donors in Russia, how many of those ads that were not part of the one organization were also not for Trump? But the fake news will not report on that. Like all dirty Clinton laundry, the FBI will send it off to the incinerator. The FBI works for us....sounds like there really isn't a national security interest in releasing the ads. They were, as they say, already posted on our FB pages all over the USA. So, Facebook and the fbi, why not show the america people the ads you are talking about. Or leak them to the NYT or wp, you're pretty good at that. Don't make use wait for wikileaks to see the rest of the story...
3
The Facebook ads are in your 'saved box'.
2
Really?????
1
The Facebook story is just the tip of the iceberg. Virtually every internet political comments page is infested with fake Russian accounts and bots. I'm guessing that even the Times itself has been targeted by these groups.
It was clear even in the primaries that the bots had infiltrated the Sanders campaign and websites, as later admitted by Sanders' campaign Facebook coordinator, using the Sanders campaign as a platform to attack Hillary and to actively discourage Sanders supporters from voting for her.
Finally, the targeting of the Russian bot activity to critical Midwestern states at critical points in the campaign certainly indicates that the Russians were getting help from inside the US as to where to direct their resources and efforts. Hopefully, Mueller is hot on the trail of those US collaborators who aided Russia in their insidious efforts to disrupt our election.
Disappointingly, many of the commenters on here fail to realize that under our election laws, there is a complete ban on any kind of foreign interference in our elections. The Russian government does not have First Amendment rights to free speech in American elections.
Sadly, the Russian interference in our election has accomplished its goal of undermining our faith in the American electoral system.
It was clear even in the primaries that the bots had infiltrated the Sanders campaign and websites, as later admitted by Sanders' campaign Facebook coordinator, using the Sanders campaign as a platform to attack Hillary and to actively discourage Sanders supporters from voting for her.
Finally, the targeting of the Russian bot activity to critical Midwestern states at critical points in the campaign certainly indicates that the Russians were getting help from inside the US as to where to direct their resources and efforts. Hopefully, Mueller is hot on the trail of those US collaborators who aided Russia in their insidious efforts to disrupt our election.
Disappointingly, many of the commenters on here fail to realize that under our election laws, there is a complete ban on any kind of foreign interference in our elections. The Russian government does not have First Amendment rights to free speech in American elections.
Sadly, the Russian interference in our election has accomplished its goal of undermining our faith in the American electoral system.
18
Right, one simply has to peruse the Breitbart comment sections or the WaPO/NYTimes even!
"Virtually every internet political comments page is infested with fake Russian accounts and bots."
How have you verified this claim?
"It was clear even in the primaries that the bots had infiltrated the Sanders campaign and websites, as later admitted by Sanders' campaign Facebook coordinator, using the Sanders campaign as a platform to attack Hillary and to actively discourage Sanders supporters from voting for her."
Same question.
How have you verified this claim?
"It was clear even in the primaries that the bots had infiltrated the Sanders campaign and websites, as later admitted by Sanders' campaign Facebook coordinator, using the Sanders campaign as a platform to attack Hillary and to actively discourage Sanders supporters from voting for her."
Same question.
I think what influenced the election was that Trump -- as bad as he may be, if you believe the Times -- was a better candidate than HRC. How many people look at ads on FB? An entire $100k was spent on FB ads by, egads, Russians? That certainly proves collusion.
1
I think--Trump was seen to be a 'better' candidate than Hillary because of the derogatory information about Hillary sent to the electorate by Russian operatives. Wouldn't that have been the point?
1
So for six months or longer, Facebook denied this. Why? Money? I'll bet they are cooperating with Mueller. Zuckerberg doesn't look good in orange.
6
So Facebook conspired with the Russians to get Trump elected. Interesting.
2
I use an add on to avoid facebook adds and other things...I have ad blocker...so maybe did not see the adds in question...However posts on fake news facebook pages got sent along the newsfeed...I bet those were paid for And then there are the trolls....
Thanks FaceBook for letting us know that you engaged in business transactions with Russians, who were potentially attempting to subvert our democratic process. US citizens, including corporations, are prohibited from engaging in business transactions with persons, entities or countries that are on the OFAC sanctions list, which includes much of Russia and its political figures. Before engaging in business transactions in high risk areas of the world, US companies are well advised to conduct due diligence before engaging in international commerce by checking the US sanctions list and are required to refuse to do business with sanctions targets. Violation of the sanctions laws can lead to steep fines and even imprisonment. How is it that FaceBook gets a pass on this? Did it get a waiver (license)?
6
When it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of other Nations, the USA is the Gold standard. We often kill elected leaders of other countries. Can we complain if some foreigner buys a political here, In light of what we do everywhere and how we interfere everywhere. I think not.
4
$100,000 ads is the big news? Well, Dem raised hundreds of millions of dollars and cannot beat this merely $100,000? I do not know what to say.
2
Political ads are the cash cow for radio, t.v. and now social media. Imagine how differently people might be informed about candidates without them. If Russian trolls can intercept FB with falsehoods, how are we assured they aren't doing the same with t.v. ads? Citizens United certainly opens that possiblity. A fragmented nation is a weakened nation which is what "Czar" Putin wants.
Americans should not be getting their news from Facebook. But it is convenient, as easy as sharing that recipe for apple pie. Unsure how you undo FB junkie syndrome.
Americans should not be getting their news from Facebook. But it is convenient, as easy as sharing that recipe for apple pie. Unsure how you undo FB junkie syndrome.
3
If Facebook was "propagating misleading information during the presidential campaign", how do we know that what they are saying now is true?
3
Bingo!!
I volunteered for the Clinton campaign in affluent and rural areas. After FBI director Comey made his weird not guilty announcement and Wikileaks made their insinuations about the Clinton Foundation, many volunteers who had been staunch Clinton volunteers stopped supporting her.
6
As well they should have. Does it matter where the information comes from as long as it is credible?
Ahh Wikileaks my favorite source for the truth,Get Real?
Congress should require that all political ads list names of individuals and companies be clearly labeled on the ad whether it be print, tv, internet. This might not stop interference from Russia, but it could lead to discovery sooner and prosecution earlier.
1
Just the use of the word 'skirmish' is irresponsible. This isn't a skirmish. This is an investigation of the takeover blog our country by a hostile power that attempted and succeeded in installing their puppet as president.
4
They took over facebook? That is what you got out of this?
Seems to me that our intelligent community were asleep at the wheel. This should have been exposed during the election not after!
3
So $100,000 out of over $1.5 BILLION spent by Trump and Clinton on their campaigns. Less than 0.01%. And you think that had an actual impact on the election?! Come on.
2
Have you looked at facebook? Yes, $100,000 can do a lot of damage via facebook and stupid people.
2
This is not really worth responding to, but you're thinking like Don Jr. here—$10 or $1 million, it's not the amount that was spent that's the problem, it's what it was used for, the illegal actions behind it.
1
Just because the Russians bought the ads doesn't mean we had to read them, believe them, or do anything with them. If Americans don't want to consider the sources of their information on candidates or anything else they are the fools. An ad or infomercial is NOT a reliable source of information. One of the first things I learned in high school was to look at an ad to see who it was meant to appeal to, what the message was, and then to move on to the next ad. Another thing I was taught in high school was to look at the source whether the writer was affiliated with an organization or had a history that would indicate a bias one way or another on an issue. It's too bad that doesn't seem to be taught to Americans or used by them when it comes to politics.
I repeat, the fact that the Russians bought ads on Facebook to try and persuade Americans to vote one way or the other doesn't mean Americans had to read them. More shame on them if they did vote based on those ads. Ads are inherently misleading.
I repeat, the fact that the Russians bought ads on Facebook to try and persuade Americans to vote one way or the other doesn't mean Americans had to read them. More shame on them if they did vote based on those ads. Ads are inherently misleading.
4
"The ads, which ran between June 2015 and May 2017..."
"The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign, which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election."
Doesn't the timing indicate that this is more than the Trump/Clinton interference that the article suggests. The ads were purchased for a period beginning about a year before either Trump or Clinton had secured their partiies' nominations and continued for 6 months after the election. It would seem that Russia may be playing a longer game here, focusing more on shaping the overall political climate as much as picking specific winners in an election.
"The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign, which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election."
Doesn't the timing indicate that this is more than the Trump/Clinton interference that the article suggests. The ads were purchased for a period beginning about a year before either Trump or Clinton had secured their partiies' nominations and continued for 6 months after the election. It would seem that Russia may be playing a longer game here, focusing more on shaping the overall political climate as much as picking specific winners in an election.
2
The most casual FB user could spot a bogus account set up purely for the purpose of trolling. They're still there, every day. They don't post solely on FB, but use the account to register for comment sections all over the political internet.
So basically Mueller has more evidence that Facebook conspired with the Russians to interfere in the elections than he does that Trump did. Egads people, have you no shame?
Look, there are three indisputable facts:
1. Russia interfered with the elections. Stipulated.
2. They did so without Trump, they hate Hillary all by themselves.
3. The Russian interference in the US elections was done on Obama's watch, and is just another feather in his hat of complete incompetence.
As such, in the end, a long time from now, all people will remember about this Trump/Russia investigation piece of history is: Trump was innocent, Democrats are sore losers, and Obama was a terrible president.
Look, there are three indisputable facts:
1. Russia interfered with the elections. Stipulated.
2. They did so without Trump, they hate Hillary all by themselves.
3. The Russian interference in the US elections was done on Obama's watch, and is just another feather in his hat of complete incompetence.
As such, in the end, a long time from now, all people will remember about this Trump/Russia investigation piece of history is: Trump was innocent, Democrats are sore losers, and Obama was a terrible president.
4
See? They are still at it! Convoluted misinformation. Don't read or believe anything without knowing/examining the source. Good example!
Facebook could stop running ads....
When Russia buys space in the hopes of influencing the way I think, that's evil. When McDonald's or Coca Cola does the same, it's Capitalism, therefore good. Nice try, but do you really think we're that stupid? I'm sick of hearing how Facebook and their likes are messing up our lives. We don't need to go abroad to find enemies, we have more than enough right here at home.
1
Trusting Facebook for anything isn't too smart. How much of their user base is fake overall? Makes you wonder.
2
If you were looking for a reason to stop using facebook, this would be it. Don't even think about your addiction, the misinformation, the bullying, or the propaganda it promotes.
4
“Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.”
Wow, a whole $100,000, amazing, astounding.
Will the Times be sharing the contents of the adverts or where they were distributed?
And finally the admission:
“Facebook did not make public any of the ads, nor did it say how many people saw them.”
“In a January report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency concluded that the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets...”
Wrong, a few hand picked analysts from those agencies made that claim. This is not the first time the Times has tried to slip this “error” through.
“Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections.”
This is true and yet the Times has not tied this Facebook advert “campaign” to the Russian state. Oh and various anti-Trump republicans and Hillary backers used the Steele Dossier to campaign against Trump. That’s foreign influence. He’s a British spy, using Russian sources.
Wow, a whole $100,000, amazing, astounding.
Will the Times be sharing the contents of the adverts or where they were distributed?
And finally the admission:
“Facebook did not make public any of the ads, nor did it say how many people saw them.”
“In a January report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency concluded that the Russian government, on direct orders from President Vladimir V. Putin, was responsible for hacking Democratic targets...”
Wrong, a few hand picked analysts from those agencies made that claim. This is not the first time the Times has tried to slip this “error” through.
“Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections.”
This is true and yet the Times has not tied this Facebook advert “campaign” to the Russian state. Oh and various anti-Trump republicans and Hillary backers used the Steele Dossier to campaign against Trump. That’s foreign influence. He’s a British spy, using Russian sources.
3
Boycotting
1
If the charge is that Russia covertly and illegally spent money to influence our election, then you haven’t responded to the charge if you note that both sides in the election relied on the vile Citizens United decision. Not every bad thing is the same bad thing, and changing the subject befogs each issue.
1
Ever notice that Trump has NEVER addressed this clear and present danger as a threat to national security?
Me neither...
Me neither...
18
Obama ignored the entire mess, His admin knew well in advance the Russians were sticking their nose in. He did nothing because he knew Clinton had it in the bag.... or so he thought as did millions more
4
Jim
He sanctioned and condemned Russia for the hacking. Trump has praised putin and Russia for everything including asking a
Them to hack Hillary.
His son and him tried to collude with Russia and get as much money from Russia as they can.
He sanctioned and condemned Russia for the hacking. Trump has praised putin and Russia for everything including asking a
Them to hack Hillary.
His son and him tried to collude with Russia and get as much money from Russia as they can.
2
Hmmm.....and agencies of our own government are not developing AI bots to interact with social media platforms in order to direct public opinion?
7
Jim K--So, two wrongs make a right.
2
You missed his point. Our government meddles in other countries' elections all the time. Putin has a personal vendetta against HRC for her comments during his own rigged election. To highlight $100K ads in FB as a reason to hoot and holler about our own broken election system is silly.
As long as Russia did not directly interfere with vote count, I have no personal problem with Russia attempting to influence the election. In a sense, they have a First Amendment right to do so just like any other group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or MoveOn or any other entity who pays for political advertising. Is what Russia attempted to do any less nefarious than what the Democratic National Committee / Establishment legally did to Bernie Sanders? Is what Russia attempted to do any less nefarious than what conservative groups like Breitbart or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did in presidential elections? In these cases, these organizations have a desired outcome in the elections and attempted to influence the vote by informing or misinforming the electorate via their advertising. How is that any different if Russia did the same exact thing? And doesn't America do it too with our Voice of America radio broadcasts?
Maybe instead of getting in an uproar over election "interference", our country needs more robust voters who are not so easily duped.
Maybe instead of getting in an uproar over election "interference", our country needs more robust voters who are not so easily duped.
5
While I agree with your last sentence (after the comma), I'm wondering exactly when Russia or any other government became entitled to OUR First Amendment rights? Is this not a right granted to US CITIZENS under the Constitution. All the other groups you mention, as sad as it is, are protected under our Constitution. Foreign governments do not get this privilege.
17
The First Amendment applies only to U.S. citizens. It does not apply to foreign governments under any circumstances. And yes, we may propagandize through Voice of America, but we are pretty upfront since we call it "Voice of America". If the Russians had been broadcasting as "Voice of Russia", that would be an entirely different issue.
3
Your concern for OUR rights would ring a bit truer if you also acknowledged that OUR government has gone to great lengths to influence political outcomes in other countries, up to and including the use of military violence to that end.
You see, I just don't think we have that much to complain about, except for poor voter turnout and an uneducated, easily-duped electorate.
You see, I just don't think we have that much to complain about, except for poor voter turnout and an uneducated, easily-duped electorate.
The United States will not be able to prosecute Russian trolls, but it could prosecute Facebook for accepting political campaign ads from foreign nationals. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Election Campaign Act “prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person: Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national; Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.”
6
Exactly.
1
How is this news? There is nothing illegal about foreign persons placing ads in the US on policy matters. If an Irish person wants to promote Ireland, knock your socks off. Advertise Ireland in the Wall Street Journal or other reputable newspaper. If someone from Africa, or Russia, or wherever is for or against gay civil rights, advertise to your heat's content. it is not illegal.
Election campaigning for a candidate by foreign persons is not permitted, however.
Election campaigning for a candidate by foreign persons is not permitted, however.
4
The fact that the Russians used the internet to influence our election is testament to the stupidity of the American voters. My parents taught me to be skeptical of everything I read, and to try to think things through before making a decision. Many people read something on the internet and assume it is true. Our educational system is failing us in this connected world of ours. Liars and thieves abound, and the internet gives them a platform to dupe the gullible. Until we realize how vulnerable the internet is to deceiving print we will remain at risk.
9
Just another good reason to drop the distraction known as Facebook.
10
Facebook and Twitter are like the ring in a bull's nose, tug on it just right and with a few ounces of pressure you control thousands of pounds of bull (pun intended). As some commenters have mentioned, it's addictive...right up there with meth and gambling...and tailor made (being a platform that mixes the familiar with the inane/insane) for disruption.
6
It took facebook almost two years to identify Russian actors on ads from May 2015, but they can reject my copyrighted video in 3 minutes.
Tell Zucker to build a bigger wall, he is Lame....
Tell Zucker to build a bigger wall, he is Lame....
4
$100K? Is that all? Does anyone really think this amount of FB ads made a substantive difference in the election? We are all inundated with millions and millions of $$ spent in political advertising each election season. $100K is a laughable drop in the bucket. That is small change.
23
Not exactly the point, is it?
2
Small amount, but effective enough when passed along for free as political clickbait. There has been Plenty of that about, and it is getting almost as deep as Hurricane Harvey, and about as loud smelling.
2
The election came down to 77,744 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Russia was given data to target and influence specific voters $100,000 could be effective.
Russia was given data to target and influence specific voters $100,000 could be effective.
2
What is the alarm exactly? The Russians have been doing stuff of this nature since 1917. Is this really new? Bonus: You can tell it's the Russians - they do a really bad job at it. You can spot their efforts very easily. We do it too, we are just better at these efforts compared to the Russians
2
Maybe some Americans want to enable Putin to intefere in our elections. But, the fact remains that the Russians NEVER dared try this before in the US. They first perfected their techniques in European governments.
When Russia set up its "troll farms" and paid trolls to deliberately smear Hillary Clinton in areas of voting districts that gave Trump his chance to win more Electoral College votes, they went for the jugular.
The point is that in order for Republicans to do what Gingrich once told the country, "We will have a permanent Republican Majority," how much did Gingrich know then about rigging elections to effect that desired result?
When Russia set up its "troll farms" and paid trolls to deliberately smear Hillary Clinton in areas of voting districts that gave Trump his chance to win more Electoral College votes, they went for the jugular.
The point is that in order for Republicans to do what Gingrich once told the country, "We will have a permanent Republican Majority," how much did Gingrich know then about rigging elections to effect that desired result?
1
Maybe Facebook can hire Kaspersky Lab to do something about it....
8
LOL! Good one!
2
So "Russia" bought ads on Facebook to help elect a President who would counter their moves helping Assad in Syria and take dramatic action to take down embassy staff! No really!
We ought to shut down our federal government to investigate if that really happened! No really!
We ought to shut down our federal government to investigate if that really happened! No really!
1
Russia wanted to oust the side that brought us the Magnitsky Act & help the side that is pro-business & de-regulation. Putin was/is concerned that the Left will embrace more regulations while he is hopeful that the Right will be more business friendly (ie less regulations).
It's not that hard to connect the dots. Russian oligarchs (& Putin) are directly affected by the Act & other protectionist regulations (championed by the Left). Did you really think their lawyer wanted to meet with Trump Jr to discuss adoptions? Don't be so naïve. Read Red Notice if you really want to understand what's going on.
It's not that hard to connect the dots. Russian oligarchs (& Putin) are directly affected by the Act & other protectionist regulations (championed by the Left). Did you really think their lawyer wanted to meet with Trump Jr to discuss adoptions? Don't be so naïve. Read Red Notice if you really want to understand what's going on.
People complained when it was discovered that our government was tracking citizens and requesting information from companies like Verizon, etc. And yet people go on Facebook and post all kinds of personal information about themselves. Go figure. I never used Facebook and I never will. Anyone who gets their news from Facebook is a fool.
7
You may be right and if you are there are that means a hell of a lot of fools out there who vote. What to do about them? Limit suffrage?
Americans get a glimpse of the social and political dysfunction and sleaze in Russia. God bless the USA. It ain't perfect, and Trump is a step backward, but at least it isn't Russia.
3
As always, follow the money.
Trump cozied up to the Russians because his business prospects in the US are limited due to his lousy reputation. The presidency was a shiny stick that Putin, via his henchmen, waved in front of Trump with the future possibility of a Trump branded building in Moscow. Give Trump some slack. Once he was given an offer he could not refuse, he was helpless to resist.
Zuckerberg cozied up to the Russians because they paid the ad fees. Money is money; where it comes from is mostly irrelevant.
Who else is being funded by our Russian friends? We may never know but rest assured, they are legion.
There is a reason that the Good Book mentions that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Trump cozied up to the Russians because his business prospects in the US are limited due to his lousy reputation. The presidency was a shiny stick that Putin, via his henchmen, waved in front of Trump with the future possibility of a Trump branded building in Moscow. Give Trump some slack. Once he was given an offer he could not refuse, he was helpless to resist.
Zuckerberg cozied up to the Russians because they paid the ad fees. Money is money; where it comes from is mostly irrelevant.
Who else is being funded by our Russian friends? We may never know but rest assured, they are legion.
There is a reason that the Good Book mentions that the love of money is the root of all evil.
4
There are really people who are influenced by political ads??? Seriously? I guess I'm lucky to live in a state so blue we rarely ever get to see them. There would be even less of a point here. But I think it's time to let this go. Can't anyone, or any country, with enough money, purchase advertising? I know I've seen full page ads, even "special sections" in this very paper, purchased by foreign governments. Big whoop.
14
Except that we also have: Trump signed letter of intent to build a Trump tower in Moscow, Trump Jr's infamous meeting with a ruthless Russian lawyer representing top Russian Oligarch's under the completely unbelievable premise of adoptions (it's their law to overturn, not ours) while we all know it was about the Magnitsky Act (a US law that directly affects Russian elites), hacking & release of DNC emails by Russians, ...
But, ya know, big whoop...
But, ya know, big whoop...
1
"Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections."
Then Facebook needs to know exactly who is buying its ads, and the executives must be prosecuted if they don't find out. Capitalism must have limits or our Republic will die.
Then Facebook needs to know exactly who is buying its ads, and the executives must be prosecuted if they don't find out. Capitalism must have limits or our Republic will die.
5
"Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections." So illegal immigrants commit crimes if they attempt to influence elections or does it depend on which party they support?
2
I agree with Representative Schiff and any ads with dubious sources should not be run, and that Facebook has a civic, not to mention moral, responsibility, not to run hate ads that promote racism, neo-fascism, white supremacy, attacks on immigrants, religions, or ethnic groups, etc. Regular ads for goods or services are certainly lucrative enough.
Putin certainly organized his political attack against American democracy and timed it with the Trump campaign kickoff in 2015. The ads knew exactly what divisive social issues Trump's hate and fear campaign was being run on. Add that to Don Jr.'s meeting with Russian lawyer and his loving embrace of damaging material on Hillary to come, from an enemy foreign government no less, and the pile climbs high as far as collusion.
I cannot remember a darker period in American political history and how this administration got into power is frightening and a cautionary tale for the next presidential election.
Putin certainly organized his political attack against American democracy and timed it with the Trump campaign kickoff in 2015. The ads knew exactly what divisive social issues Trump's hate and fear campaign was being run on. Add that to Don Jr.'s meeting with Russian lawyer and his loving embrace of damaging material on Hillary to come, from an enemy foreign government no less, and the pile climbs high as far as collusion.
I cannot remember a darker period in American political history and how this administration got into power is frightening and a cautionary tale for the next presidential election.
7
Facebook did not make public any of the ads, nor did it say how many people saw them. That's the complete story.
Until we see the ads consider the story fake. And realize after 8 months still no evidence that white middle-class Americans were wrongly influenced to either vote against Hillary or for Trump."Facebook did not make public any of the ads, nor did it say how many people saw
Until we see the ads consider the story fake. And realize after 8 months still no evidence that white middle-class Americans were wrongly influenced to either vote against Hillary or for Trump."Facebook did not make public any of the ads, nor did it say how many people saw
The 'messages/posts/ads' were on your phone. Did you see them? Did you pass them on? Did you vote for Trump?
Here's what I don't like about this subject - the Republicans and their cronies are always the first out there in getting the corrupting political edge in a presidential election and the Democrats are left sitting on their hands. And it happens over and over again. Want some examples in recent history:
Richard Nixon's group used subterfuge to undermine the Vietnam peace process by contacting the North Vietnamese before the 1968 election and telling them they'd get a better deal with Nixon. President Johnson even warned Nixon of this but did nothing because of other issues going on with the country.
Ronald Reagan's claque contacted Iranians holding Americans hostage and told them they would get a better deal with them, while President Carter was actively trying to get them released. In his inaugural speech of Jan 20, 1981 at noontime, Reagan commented favorably to the hostages being released after he officially took office without a stern word for the government that perpetuated the dastardly deed.
Does anything really need to be said of what happened in the 2000 election of George W. Bush v. Al Gore - with the deciding votes being controlled by the Republican candidate's brother, the governor of Florida?
And now Donald Trump - a real example of virtuous behavior.
I guess anything goes and the people won't be the wiser.
Richard Nixon's group used subterfuge to undermine the Vietnam peace process by contacting the North Vietnamese before the 1968 election and telling them they'd get a better deal with Nixon. President Johnson even warned Nixon of this but did nothing because of other issues going on with the country.
Ronald Reagan's claque contacted Iranians holding Americans hostage and told them they would get a better deal with them, while President Carter was actively trying to get them released. In his inaugural speech of Jan 20, 1981 at noontime, Reagan commented favorably to the hostages being released after he officially took office without a stern word for the government that perpetuated the dastardly deed.
Does anything really need to be said of what happened in the 2000 election of George W. Bush v. Al Gore - with the deciding votes being controlled by the Republican candidate's brother, the governor of Florida?
And now Donald Trump - a real example of virtuous behavior.
I guess anything goes and the people won't be the wiser.
5
The Russians came and they conquered the gullible.
1
In 2015 my little used Facebook account was hijacked by someone. I sent an email to Facebook, but never heard back.
Later in viewing it I noted that there were posts in what I assumed was Russian as they used the Cyrillic alphabet. At the time I thought it was being used to Spam folks for typical Internet ads. Now I wonder if it had more nefarious uses.
Later in viewing it I noted that there were posts in what I assumed was Russian as they used the Cyrillic alphabet. At the time I thought it was being used to Spam folks for typical Internet ads. Now I wonder if it had more nefarious uses.
24
He is buy dismantling Washington draining the swamp. He is very busy making America HATE again, as the last public dismantling shows.
His hand picked $billionaire cabinet is walking out on him. Three have bailed this week. There is little doubt, the man has mental problem. He has already admitted tats the job is over hid head – said it was s lot harder than he thought it would be.
His hand picked $billionaire cabinet is walking out on him. Three have bailed this week. There is little doubt, the man has mental problem. He has already admitted tats the job is over hid head – said it was s lot harder than he thought it would be.
2
You do know you can shut down your Facebook account, don't you?
This is totally lame.
We are to believe that $100,000 influenced this election? The article says, "The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign." Yeah, like what? That someone in Russia released Hillary's e-mails, which were genuine? No one seemed to complain when Donald Sterling's girlfriend released his racial tirade that cost him ownership of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team. It seems truth was an absolute defense to outing someone doing nefarious things. Well, wasn't the DNC doing nefarious things to hurt Bernie and help Hillary? How is there anything wrong with this? You're offended because the wrong person discovered the truth? Very peculiar. Had a NYT reporter uncovered the truth, this would have been a scoop!
"Facebook says Russians may have bought political ads." What does that mean? We find out that the language setting on certain accounts was set to Russian! That makes it part of a conspiracy?
The ads were not aimed at any particular candidate, but were focused on polarizing issues. You might as well find out who in Russia is supporting Greenpeace and call that election fraud.
This is $100,000. That is less than a drop in the proverbial bucket and is totally irrelevant in the election. You also have not shown any coordination or collusion among the alleged parties conducting this supposedly evil campaign (which I laud for uncovering the DNC's e-mails and Donald Sterling's racial rant).
We are to believe that $100,000 influenced this election? The article says, "The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign." Yeah, like what? That someone in Russia released Hillary's e-mails, which were genuine? No one seemed to complain when Donald Sterling's girlfriend released his racial tirade that cost him ownership of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team. It seems truth was an absolute defense to outing someone doing nefarious things. Well, wasn't the DNC doing nefarious things to hurt Bernie and help Hillary? How is there anything wrong with this? You're offended because the wrong person discovered the truth? Very peculiar. Had a NYT reporter uncovered the truth, this would have been a scoop!
"Facebook says Russians may have bought political ads." What does that mean? We find out that the language setting on certain accounts was set to Russian! That makes it part of a conspiracy?
The ads were not aimed at any particular candidate, but were focused on polarizing issues. You might as well find out who in Russia is supporting Greenpeace and call that election fraud.
This is $100,000. That is less than a drop in the proverbial bucket and is totally irrelevant in the election. You also have not shown any coordination or collusion among the alleged parties conducting this supposedly evil campaign (which I laud for uncovering the DNC's e-mails and Donald Sterling's racial rant).
Circumstantial evidence at best and what does it matter? Though it is interesting to know that a minor and insubstantial attempt was made to influence the election, the fact remains that this sort of chicanery has been happening since time immemorial. If it isn't the Russians trying to influence elections in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere it is the United States doing the same abroad. There isn't a major power out there who doesn't have an interest in swaying an election. Even domestically both political parties and their operatives attempt to mislead and influence the public with innuendo and serving as biased sources for news stories.
It's clear that Facebook and the Times have an agenda to hobble the president, but this is not solid proof that people voted one way or the other because Russian organizations bought ads on a social network.
Try again.
It's clear that Facebook and the Times have an agenda to hobble the president, but this is not solid proof that people voted one way or the other because Russian organizations bought ads on a social network.
Try again.
2
Trump's campaign was backed in the millions by Robert Mercer. Mr. Mercer is part owner of an internet data 'mining' company Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica was suspected of trolling during the Brexit campaign for the benefit of Nigel Farage, Trump's BFF across the pond.
Nigel was photographed leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame lives. When asked why he was there Nigel "could not recall".
Mr. Mercer is a computer whiz and he could have steered the Russians in the right directions here in America. Don't forget, Mercer's mega yacht was seen moored next to a Russian oligarch's yacht during the summer. Not to mention Trump's plane at the same airport as a Russian oligarch's plane on Numerous occasions over the summer as well.
There were many ways for small messages to be passed between Russia and the Trump campaign. And who is to say that the campaign stopped after the June meeting at Trump Tower. We now know that Don Jr. may not be as forthcoming as he would like us to believe. And we also know that the campaign manager to dictators, Paul Manafort, would not shy away from any means to forward one of his clients.
There is plenty to keep Mr. Mueller busy in the months ahead. The coincidence of the Billy Bush tapes release followed within 2-3 hours by the next Wikileaks dump has always made me wonder who phoned that in to Assange, that desperate plea "We need the Podesta emails NOW".
Nigel was photographed leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame lives. When asked why he was there Nigel "could not recall".
Mr. Mercer is a computer whiz and he could have steered the Russians in the right directions here in America. Don't forget, Mercer's mega yacht was seen moored next to a Russian oligarch's yacht during the summer. Not to mention Trump's plane at the same airport as a Russian oligarch's plane on Numerous occasions over the summer as well.
There were many ways for small messages to be passed between Russia and the Trump campaign. And who is to say that the campaign stopped after the June meeting at Trump Tower. We now know that Don Jr. may not be as forthcoming as he would like us to believe. And we also know that the campaign manager to dictators, Paul Manafort, would not shy away from any means to forward one of his clients.
There is plenty to keep Mr. Mueller busy in the months ahead. The coincidence of the Billy Bush tapes release followed within 2-3 hours by the next Wikileaks dump has always made me wonder who phoned that in to Assange, that desperate plea "We need the Podesta emails NOW".
2
Robert Mueller should also be investigating Nigel Farage's involvement in the Trump campaign. He appeared at several Trump rallies.
2
Shame on FB & its arrogant puffed up leader.
1
The majority of ads referred to in the article do not violate federal election laws. The New York Times article points out that “most of the 3,000 ads did not refer to particular candidates but instead focused on divisive social issues such as race, gay rights, gun control and immigration.” According to the Federal Election Commission, “despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local level.” In Advisory Opinion 1984-41, the Commission “allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were not election influencing because they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.”
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Nonelection
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Nonelection
1
Over $2Billion was spent by Hillary and the DEM Superpacs and you think $100,000 in internet ads affected the election? That is .00005% of the total ad buy. Hahahahaha!
1
100k in target advertising goes a long way buddy.
4
About 4400 ads, on Facebook, which serves up millions, if not billions of pages with ads every single day. Not even a drop in the bucket. This whole Russian thing is nonsense. Did they try, yes, as does the USA in other countries. Were they successful, NO. Hillary lost, she didn't campaign in the Midwest, had no message, and isn't very likable, plus she had that little server thingy and the Foundation for bribery scandal. Trump didn't win, Hillary lost. Hell, Bernie was the legitimate Democratic Primary winner, it was stolen from him by the DNC, etc. This is all a waste of time.
Important footnote:
"That we know about". It is near certain that the Russians used multiple shell operations to purchase on-line ads at Facebook and elsewhere (Google) that have still not been assessed and disclosed.
Facebook is a very poorly and recklessly managed organization from a computer security viewpoint. It is a hot bed for those stealing identities and for committing all kinds of fraud.
"That we know about". It is near certain that the Russians used multiple shell operations to purchase on-line ads at Facebook and elsewhere (Google) that have still not been assessed and disclosed.
Facebook is a very poorly and recklessly managed organization from a computer security viewpoint. It is a hot bed for those stealing identities and for committing all kinds of fraud.
2
While they're at it, I'd love to know who initially came up with the "Lock her Up" chants that inspired many of the Trump supporters at rallies. They were too widespread to have happened spontaneously, but were certainly effective in damaging Clinton's reputation.
4
Robert Mercer and Cambridge Analytics. Now there is where the brains were for the targeted advertising. Will be interesting to see. I am beyond appalled that half the country is either unaware or doesn't care that a foreign hostile attacked the foundation of our democracy and may have been helped by US citizens.
11
Nice to know that Facebook is a willing agent of foreign propaganda. Anything to make a buck, right? So, are we to blame the Russians or Chinese or anyone else that wants to peddle influence from a foreign power, OR should the blame rest on Facebook for failing to protect it's readers unlike other responsible news outlets?
4
Fakebook. Nuff said.
1
It's not so much a Facebook problem or responsibility, as it is the consumers of the media. We need to become more informed, more discriminating with our resources, and more skeptical of media manipulations, so we know when we have become the target! Unfortunately, the large majority of Trump supporters tended to be those less educated, so it stands to reason they were the successful targets/victims.
7
As Facebook become so powerful and popular, we should reconsider its company status. Is it a technology company or social media company. There are different responsibilities attached!
2
"Most of the 3,000 ads did not refer to particular candidates but instead focused on divisive social issues such as race, gay rights, gun control and immigration..."
If no candidates were mentioned, then this is perfectly legal under current laws and regulations. The First Amendment protects such speech for everyone.....yes, even trolls!
If no candidates were mentioned, then this is perfectly legal under current laws and regulations. The First Amendment protects such speech for everyone.....yes, even trolls!
4
True, but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee a platform for speech.
1
What would not be legal is that the Russian ads were targeted at the precinct level (as reported elsewhere several months ago), and if the Americans advising the Russians on where to target the ads and what the ads should contain were associated with the Trump campaign in any way.
This is why we have the Mueller investigation and why Mueller is investigating Junior's June 2016 meeting. I would assume Mueller is also investigating whether Kushner's digital media team was involved with the Russians.
Regarding 'no candidates being mentioned', the divisive social issues are the ones that get the right wing excited. It should be obvious to almost anyone why these issues were the focus.
This is why we have the Mueller investigation and why Mueller is investigating Junior's June 2016 meeting. I would assume Mueller is also investigating whether Kushner's digital media team was involved with the Russians.
Regarding 'no candidates being mentioned', the divisive social issues are the ones that get the right wing excited. It should be obvious to almost anyone why these issues were the focus.
4
The First Amendment applies to America. I'm not so sure Russian "trolls" in Russia or other countries who are trying to influence our elections are (or should be) covered by that. If they are, it's time to change that so it works for the times in which we live where things like the internet and social media exist. If we can't protect our elections from outside influence - particularly from false narratives designed to divide us - then the US Constitution and everything in it, including the First Amendment, becomes a pretty meaningless, out-dated, obsolete historical document.
Facebook is only as powerful as we, its users and content providers, allow it to be. No one is compelled to visit it daily, but most do. No one is compelled to ingest all the content on the news feed, but most do. And no one is compelled to believe everything that's written, but many do. Therein lies the problem. Fox News and right-wing talk radio have the same effect, but through a broadcast model. A resilient democracy requires intelligent citizens capable of sifting through media detritus and discerning fact from fiction. We are failing at that.
18
As we reduce funding to education, we make it harder for people to think for themselves and be infomed citizens who think for themselves seek out sources of information.
The Russian interference was all about hurting Hillary (Putin's enemy) and in so doing... they helped Trump. Not sure why the NYT assumes that Trump was the master mind behind it.
10
The precision with which users were targeted is what raises questions. Swing states--down to the district in some areas--received the vast majority of the ads discussed in the article. Experts doubt that foreigners conjuring the REAL fake news ("Pizzagate," etc) would have the wherewithal to target FB users so effectively. These people are essentially undergrads in creative writing, not masters in political science steeped in decades as political operatives. The suspicion is that pollsters working on behalf of the Trump campaign were directing them. Was it Trump himself? No, he has proven complete incompetence when it comes to politics. However, his campaign had plenty of clever, nefarious opportunists.
2
We don't know for sure. That is the reason there are several investigations going on.
True. He can't be the master of anything, as we keep seeing. It seems he's Putin's lackey, probably because Putin has so much on him.
1
I disagree with the writer's assertion in the last paragraph that foreign governments, foreign nationals, and companies are prohibited from influencing and interfering with our elections. After all, isn't that what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about? When will everyone wake up and get that ruling overturned? What a shame.
11
The Citizens United case dealt with CORPORATIONS and ORGANIZATIONS, not foreign entities. Foreign governments, etc. are NOT legally able to influence or interfere with elections nor provide funding to candidates or their campaign funds. There's a big difference there.
7
There is no way of stopping them. If Kim says he will hit the US with nuclear weapons if Trump is elected, what is the FEC going to do? Fine him?
This was not campaigning for a candidate. It was issue related. These were completely legal ads.
Foreign countries advertise all of the time touting their country. Look in any major publication and you will see multi-page ads for all sorts of countries.
Issue advertising is legal for anyone.
Foreign countries advertise all of the time touting their country. Look in any major publication and you will see multi-page ads for all sorts of countries.
Issue advertising is legal for anyone.
1
Facebook needs to publish a list of the ads and show people what the disinformation published during this election looks like. So many people were brainwashed. They need to see the true source of their information.
26
I agree. Sadly, though, it won't do any good. They won't believe it anyway.
"brainwashed"? You misspelled "chose something different than I wanted them to".
If true, at least it wasn't substantial.
According to Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton and her super-PACs raised over $1.2 billion and hundreds donated more than $100,000.
According to Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton and her super-PACs raised over $1.2 billion and hundreds donated more than $100,000.
4
Anyone who did not recognize those ads as propaganda when they were actually running wasn't paying attention. I remember blocking those ads and reporting them as offensive.
My money is on FB knowing all along that it was Trump/Russian propaganda. For two years it has placed profit over country.
I believe FB is finally disclosing it ahead of being outed during the ongoing investigation into Russian election interference. Why else would they wait this long to disclose it?
My money is on FB knowing all along that it was Trump/Russian propaganda. For two years it has placed profit over country.
I believe FB is finally disclosing it ahead of being outed during the ongoing investigation into Russian election interference. Why else would they wait this long to disclose it?
14
As despicable as this is, let's not lose sight of the fact that there are many more American trolls doing the same, yet with more credibility. Rush Limbaugh and company come to mind. The problem of course isn't the foreign or domestic trolls, it's the gullible Americans that believe them.
11
A month ago, I shut off FB by logging out on my computer and deleting the app on my iPhone and iPad. I noticed two things: 1) it was initially difficult not to automatically look at FB when I was bored, e.g. sitting in doctor's office or waiting in line; and 2) it made me feel SO much better, i.e. less upset by political and religious posts and less 'depressed' by comparing what I was doing to what my FB friends were doing at any given moment. The insidious part of FB is now they are emailing me daily with notices that one of my FB friends posted something. I guess it's time to change my FB settings, if only I could remember my password. :(
12
Gosh, you mean Russia isn't our friend and poses a threat in a variety of ways to the US and our democracy? You mean when Obama scorned and scoffed at Mitt Romney and snidely commented about "The 1980's called and wanted their foreign policy back" he was far off the mark? Wow.
3
That was a mistake on Obama's part, but it was 5 years ago and the GOP would've just used it against him in the fight against terrorism debate. But hey, at least Obama wasn't working with or for them.
1
Instead of the President trying to build a border wall....attack the real threats to the nation by investing more dollars in cybersecurity.
4
Money is speech. Who knew it spoke Russian?
7
Evidence once again of the over importance and reliance of too many people on social media. People actually rely on sites like Facebook for "news" which generally translates into memes, snark and falsehoods designed to support their pre-existing stands and biases. Hate Trump? No problem, you'll find your fill. Hate Hillary? No problem, same menu, different flavor.
This is as appealing as people who think they're informed because they watched the latest Alec Baldwin skit on SNL or watched the opening ten minutes of the Daily Show. What a sad statement on our country and illustrative of the ignorance of so many on both sides of the political spectrum.
This is as appealing as people who think they're informed because they watched the latest Alec Baldwin skit on SNL or watched the opening ten minutes of the Daily Show. What a sad statement on our country and illustrative of the ignorance of so many on both sides of the political spectrum.
57
A world destroyed for 100,000 USD (the price of an Oligarch's shoe). The West was a cheap "date" after all. What is that again Hillary, Bernie was the problem? 2016 was not just a loss that year, decency just lost the next 100 elections. Peak US was a long time ago and Mr World Domination Vlad knows it.
11
This another attempt to create an alternative excuse for Hillary's loss, other than the fact that she and her corporate lackey political brethren have abandoned the economic welfare of the working class. The revelation of the subterfuge among her and the DNC to sabotage Bernie were enough to prevent anyone with intelligence and conscience form voting for her. Give it a break!
5
No. It is an attempt to understand what happened in the 2016 election. Hillary lost. I can accept that. What I refuse to accept is this idea that we shouldn't investigate what happened and try to ensure our future elections are as secure as possible. Doing anything less is un-American.
2
Some voluptuous pouty Russian chick friended me and some sweaty rock hard abs Russian dude PM'd my wife and it threw us into a spell and made us vote against the Democratic party. Seriously, those Russians are clever.
5
Yes, but it all helped elect Trump, and that is a good thing according to his devoted followers. Isn't it?
3
I regularly report clearly fake troll accounts for review, and Facebook responds that they are legitimate. When asked to fill in the emoticon that best reflects my satisfaction with the exchange, I choose the saddest face available and thank them for sabotaging democracy in exchange for a few shekels.
12
America needs Congress to enact new campaign finance reform legislation. SCOTUS' ideological Citizens United ruling improperly linked unlimited money donations with free speech not considering that foreign governments/entities could be behind large sums of money.
Unlimited campaign donations has the US drifting toward a plutocracy. Add this latest news of Russians financing Facebook political ads and America may not even work for the best interests of Americans but instead for international corporations/entities who throw money into elections.
Unlimited campaign donations has the US drifting toward a plutocracy. Add this latest news of Russians financing Facebook political ads and America may not even work for the best interests of Americans but instead for international corporations/entities who throw money into elections.
7
“Fakebook is a media company.”
Long before the election FT called Fakebook out on its responsibilities as a news organization pointing out that 2/3 of users rely on it for their news. Fakebook edited this news particularly streaming.
Obama complained about the “dustcloud of nonsense” coming out of Fakebook. Terminally arrogant Zuckerberg’s response: “that's a pretty crazy idea” - that fake news influenced the election.
Not until after the British and American elections did Zuckerberg have his epiphany to start "cosmetic corrections". The German government is going to fine them for false stories. Who should pay for their fact checking? The public? What about 'truth in advertising"?
Zuckerberg’s FakeBook made $10 billion in profits last year. The cost to democracies was immeasurable.
Long before the election FT called Fakebook out on its responsibilities as a news organization pointing out that 2/3 of users rely on it for their news. Fakebook edited this news particularly streaming.
Obama complained about the “dustcloud of nonsense” coming out of Fakebook. Terminally arrogant Zuckerberg’s response: “that's a pretty crazy idea” - that fake news influenced the election.
Not until after the British and American elections did Zuckerberg have his epiphany to start "cosmetic corrections". The German government is going to fine them for false stories. Who should pay for their fact checking? The public? What about 'truth in advertising"?
Zuckerberg’s FakeBook made $10 billion in profits last year. The cost to democracies was immeasurable.
13
Could it be the Democrats lost because they had a really really bad candidate and screwed over their viable candidate? I mean to loose to Trimp? seriously. She lost to Trump. How bad do you have to be to loose to that thing?
2
I assume you are talking about Bernie who in my opinion brought us Trump, the worst candidate ever to run in the history of this country. If Hillary , the really,really bad candidate could replace the Donald tomorrow, I would be down on my knees thanking the powers that be.
2
So the only manipulation that is allowed is by American multinationals, which have interests counter to that of the citizenry. This whole allegation of Russian influence is laughable, in light of the myriad efforts that our government and its corporate overlords exert on other countries to manipulate their elections. These efforts do not stop before regime change wherein we assassinate other leaders and install puppet regimes around the globe. The NYT's and other corporate media serve as the gatekeepers of historical information, so the pubpic is presented with an alternate reality that this so-called intrusion into the American election(if any of it really happened) is presented as somehow unique to human history. What a travesty!
4
Facebook users are now having second thoughts about posting their daily habits for the world to see.
4
I am wholeheartedly embracing Tim Snyder's Lesson #9 from "On Tyranny."
It has to do with language and ends with this: "Make an effort to separate yourself from the internet. Read more books." I look at the lead picture and realize now that I am glad I don't have a smart phone.
It has to do with language and ends with this: "Make an effort to separate yourself from the internet. Read more books." I look at the lead picture and realize now that I am glad I don't have a smart phone.
4
The more we learn, the more I find myself questioning the validity of the election. This appears to have gone far beyond erroneous information on social media. Polling registration lists were hacked. How many people didn't get to vote? How many decisions were made as a result of Russian interference. It still makes no sense to me how the polls could have been so far off. When has that ever happened?
11
Facebook just wanted the cash money for ads. I find it implausible that fb didn't have some idea of what was going on. Maybe they were just waiting until the check cleared.
10
Are the Facebook users who were targeted going to be notified? Will the specific ads they were targeted with be provided to them for their information?
9
Likely the tip of the iceberg. FB is becoming a conduit for anything and everything that encourages excess by allowing almost any entity to use use it. Russian users learned how to manipulate it. Heaven only knows how much they did under more clever camouflage. These trickling revelations, if nothing else, make the Steele dossier look more credible with each passing day. It remains a fascinating template for any understanding of what was done by a foreign power to the American presidential election.
8
Facebook, television, radio, email, and other means of electronic communication need more regulation. The advertising that is required to sustain this kind of communication has a kind of numbing effect for me. All I can tolerate, is a short message regarding a gal in white costume selling insurance. Above that, I tune out the news, the entertainment, the movies and all when the ads interrupt and my train of thought is broken. I feel for all who must hear, watch, be influenced by, and rush to buy, that car that has symphony music playing, or that drug that shows such happy people using it, or that lawyer, whose shifty movements or zombie like stillness, sends me to the next room.
We have to be supportive of our system of checks and balances and pray that the investigators get enough silence to digest their informational milkshake.
We have to be supportive of our system of checks and balances and pray that the investigators get enough silence to digest their informational milkshake.
7
If this is true, We all in big trouble again.
2
Why did Facebook not have controls in place to prevent this illegal transaction?
13
I was thinking the same thing. They must have known this was happening or something was suspicious
2
FB is an ultra-liberal company in which I would not be one bit surprised if they were fully aware of such accounts and let them continue to operate knowing full well that the could "discover" said accounts at an opportune time. I find it both comical and sad that people think that the big bad Russians are using FB to undermine our country when it is FB, in and of itself, which is propagating the division in our society. Ironically, FB has had little problem in censoring many accounts that so chooses. Rather than monitoring WHAT is posted, perhaps FB should better monitor WHO is opening accounts . . . of course their first concern is turning a profit.
9
I know for a fact FB is eliminating Christian posters.
3
Extremist RW Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited sub rosa corporate donations as 'free speech' made Trump Family, Inc a Reality.
5
It's critical to note that these ads, and probably Putin's broader efforts, were focused on influencing all ends of the US political spectrum with the goal to get us off common ground and tear us apart as a nation.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other, we need to point fingers at Putin and ultimately, ourselves, for falling for his ploy.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other, we need to point fingers at Putin and ultimately, ourselves, for falling for his ploy.
16
We need democracy, not social media. Social media is the wild west of communication, unregulated, the "gold miners" of the twenty first century, mining for influence, money, and power. No one really needs to see a picture of someone's lunch on FB or any other platform. We, as consumers, hold much of the blame for allowing these latest toys to exert so much power over our lives.
17
U.S. government policy-making is afflicted by - run by - a massive, institutionalized influence-peddling operation... the so-called "K-Street" election-funding apparatus. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder and/or the most clever organizations. Most people are painfully aware of this fact.
That's what the "Citizens United" fight was about - protecting the ability of small groups to disproportionately influence U.S. policy.
Russia is just one of those groups attempting to influence policy. Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Great Britain are some others. Because the U.S. affects world affairs, it is natural - and appropriate - for those foreign entities to attempt to steer our policy. In fact, some of the best feedback we've ever gotten has come from our so-called "enemies".
So why the surprise and dismay over a paltry $100K worth of influence-peddling via Facebook? Facebook is a piker compared to K-Street.
Therefore, I hold no hope for locating the fabled "Trusted Source". Not even the vaunted NYT (sorry, guys).
How to cope? My solution is to read from many conflicting, "bought", axe-grinding sources, and use my judgment to triangulate among them.
That's what the "Citizens United" fight was about - protecting the ability of small groups to disproportionately influence U.S. policy.
Russia is just one of those groups attempting to influence policy. Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Great Britain are some others. Because the U.S. affects world affairs, it is natural - and appropriate - for those foreign entities to attempt to steer our policy. In fact, some of the best feedback we've ever gotten has come from our so-called "enemies".
So why the surprise and dismay over a paltry $100K worth of influence-peddling via Facebook? Facebook is a piker compared to K-Street.
Therefore, I hold no hope for locating the fabled "Trusted Source". Not even the vaunted NYT (sorry, guys).
How to cope? My solution is to read from many conflicting, "bought", axe-grinding sources, and use my judgment to triangulate among them.
13
Sir, you have no understanding of the role of high quality media in democracy, or for that matter the need for facts and expert judgment in executive decision-making. Listening to wrestling ideologues with contrasting biases but no validated information will never get the truth. It will only give you free choice among which unverified claims and snappy one-liners you find more comparable with your own personality and philosophical biases.
1
So, in our billion dollar elections now, the propaganda machine wants you to believe 100,000 stole the election??? Why did Facebook take the money then?? Who's to blame there? Could this just be more cover and "reason" for them to pull advertising from conservative groups with conservative topics as they are already doing ( the equivilant of thought control or burning books)
7
the notion that the russians got into this to get trump elected defines our complacency over decades as the soviet union ("we will bury you") and now the russian state has been active in the subversion of the united states.
once more (to repeat from previous posts): they fund stuff like this social media blitz and they foment and finance lots of the bad stuff that's going on in the street...and so it has been since there was a soviet...and will be as long as we let it be...culturally speaking the waves and winds of subversion have the same erosive effect on society as those of, say, hurricanes, like harvey and now irma, wreak on the people and property in their paths.
perhaps the most successful and significant of these "erosions" is the compromise of one of our most powerful protections, the freedom of inquiry and debate in our colleges and universities...the decline of rigor and exacting standards in favor "customer service" did not happen overnight, but it is the erosion of those disciplines that has set our schools up for the pushing and shoving, shouting and panic that does seem to have descended so rapidly, the vulnerability to bumper stickers and slogans, tweets and bleats of discontent. if you will.
problem is, while a hurricane or a west coast wildfire is impossible to deny, subversion is (though not hard to detect if one is paying attention) easier to ignore, we just roll over and push the snooze button, its so much more comfortable under the sheets.
once more (to repeat from previous posts): they fund stuff like this social media blitz and they foment and finance lots of the bad stuff that's going on in the street...and so it has been since there was a soviet...and will be as long as we let it be...culturally speaking the waves and winds of subversion have the same erosive effect on society as those of, say, hurricanes, like harvey and now irma, wreak on the people and property in their paths.
perhaps the most successful and significant of these "erosions" is the compromise of one of our most powerful protections, the freedom of inquiry and debate in our colleges and universities...the decline of rigor and exacting standards in favor "customer service" did not happen overnight, but it is the erosion of those disciplines that has set our schools up for the pushing and shoving, shouting and panic that does seem to have descended so rapidly, the vulnerability to bumper stickers and slogans, tweets and bleats of discontent. if you will.
problem is, while a hurricane or a west coast wildfire is impossible to deny, subversion is (though not hard to detect if one is paying attention) easier to ignore, we just roll over and push the snooze button, its so much more comfortable under the sheets.
3
Way to go, Zuck.
5
This story returns to the unavoidable problem with a two way system of advertising and communication without requirements to identify who is saying or presenting what .
"On the Internet, no one has to know you're a dog.", which first appeared in the New Yorker, I think, really hits the mark.
It appears that increasingly, the dogs are talking to audiences unknowing whether the audience is also made up of dogs.
It is all propaganda and people easily swayed by such "cow pie" information are merely consuming what they prefer.
"On the Internet, no one has to know you're a dog.", which first appeared in the New Yorker, I think, really hits the mark.
It appears that increasingly, the dogs are talking to audiences unknowing whether the audience is also made up of dogs.
It is all propaganda and people easily swayed by such "cow pie" information are merely consuming what they prefer.
5
While the GOP "manfully" opposed a POTUS who'd been demeaned by Trump, all sorts of thugs snuk into our political system. Eternal vigilance? The list of results of negligence and complacency just goes on growing,
3
After 6 months of congressional hearings and special investigators the first real evidence of Russian election interference is $100,000 worth of Facebook ads? Are you kidding?
7
Uh, no. And it's far from the first real evidence.
9
I am not sure I see a real difference between us as users of Facebook and the Trump team. Put the Facebook organization in there with Mr. Zuckerberg playing the role of an intelligent Herr Trump.
Of course, the scale is totally different and one would have hoped that our politicians would have had some morals (ha! Trump...morals, now there's a concept). All of us are culpable and maybe all of us ought to be under investigation. We all went hook, line, and sinker, after "dirt" and sensationalistic stories fomented by the Russians that gave easy answers to complex topics.
I would love to see Mr. Trump, our so-called President, slither back under the rock he came from but he, as a result of our lust for easy answers and our penchant for crass voyeurism, is our very own creation and we, an increasingly corrupt and intellectually lazy culture, we deserve him.
I fear the future promises us the leaders we have asked for.
Of course, the scale is totally different and one would have hoped that our politicians would have had some morals (ha! Trump...morals, now there's a concept). All of us are culpable and maybe all of us ought to be under investigation. We all went hook, line, and sinker, after "dirt" and sensationalistic stories fomented by the Russians that gave easy answers to complex topics.
I would love to see Mr. Trump, our so-called President, slither back under the rock he came from but he, as a result of our lust for easy answers and our penchant for crass voyeurism, is our very own creation and we, an increasingly corrupt and intellectually lazy culture, we deserve him.
I fear the future promises us the leaders we have asked for.
4
So was there coordination with Robert Mercer or Cambridge Analytics with this cyber-propaganda via Facebook attacks?
6
Facebook does not police itself well, even with help from members like me who show them fake accounts, which they tell me to block. They usually refuse to delete such accounts even when the accounts are obviously fake. I've stopped reporting them now because Facebook doesn't care about fake accounts. Also, I get at least 2 Friend requests per day from sex-selling accounts disguised as buxom females. These are not the accounts I have reported to Facebook as fake, but are an entirely different category. Facebook is an unchained monster, really.
8
Facebook is for social contact. It is not a reputable news source. Talk to friends, don't get your news from the Internet.
Yes, talk to friends who get their news from FB and maybe if lucky, Rush Limbaugh.
Or even better, get your news from the government.
Some good examples:
They sank the Maine.
The North Vietnamese Navy attacked American ships without provocation.
The government is led by a dictator (who doesn't play ball with American corporations) or a communist. (Please just add the name of the country. Start with Chile, Cuba, China, Russia, any South or Central American country or any country America's 1% says "Got to go."
WMD. No, Home of terrorists. No, that is not selling. Rebuild the nation as a democracy. Again, not selling. HA! Yes, he tried to kill my dad.
Or even better, get your news from the government.
Some good examples:
They sank the Maine.
The North Vietnamese Navy attacked American ships without provocation.
The government is led by a dictator (who doesn't play ball with American corporations) or a communist. (Please just add the name of the country. Start with Chile, Cuba, China, Russia, any South or Central American country or any country America's 1% says "Got to go."
WMD. No, Home of terrorists. No, that is not selling. Rebuild the nation as a democracy. Again, not selling. HA! Yes, he tried to kill my dad.
Do we need any more reasons to get out of our social media bubbles, with their targeted ads and echo chamber effect?
I know I'm make more of an effort to put down the electronics and interact with the people in front of my face face and read news (not ads) from real journalists, like those who write for the NY Times, WSJ, WaPo, USA Today, The Economist, Atlantic, New Republic, etc
I know I'm make more of an effort to put down the electronics and interact with the people in front of my face face and read news (not ads) from real journalists, like those who write for the NY Times, WSJ, WaPo, USA Today, The Economist, Atlantic, New Republic, etc
4
I heard some experts speculate that Russia could have also hacked into enough voting machines to deliver the election to Trump. When will that allegation be thoroughly investigated?
5
I hope this admission was a forced-hand disclosure by Facebook. Spilling the beans before it leaks, and looks worse - or IS worse. Inside operators, maybe? I'm sure Facebook has a few bad apples in it's tree. IMHO.
Great. So, did Facebook make money off of these ads? Forget Russians. Facebook helped put(in) this guy in the White House.
1
This revelation needs to be considered in the context of recent statements by Russian president Putin regarding artificial intelligence. ""The one who becomes the leader in this sphere will be the ruler of the world," he said.
A major element of the election manipulation was computational propaganda, the capacity to microtarget messages to specific populations. Consider the possibility of president Trump's tweets with different words for different audiences but all designed to influence similar behavior in the recipients. The 2016 election was won by one set of political technologies. Vastly more sophisticated technologies for political control are emerging where AI will enable political control of a large segment of the population.
Mr. Putin seeing remarkable success with the American election where an unlikely candidate was elected at relatively little cost no doubt is savoring the possibilities of even more effective political technologies in the future. They cost much less than aircraft carriers.
A major element of the election manipulation was computational propaganda, the capacity to microtarget messages to specific populations. Consider the possibility of president Trump's tweets with different words for different audiences but all designed to influence similar behavior in the recipients. The 2016 election was won by one set of political technologies. Vastly more sophisticated technologies for political control are emerging where AI will enable political control of a large segment of the population.
Mr. Putin seeing remarkable success with the American election where an unlikely candidate was elected at relatively little cost no doubt is savoring the possibilities of even more effective political technologies in the future. They cost much less than aircraft carriers.
17
Let's try to be honest and think clearly about this. Outside entities have been meddling in US elections for a long time now (yes, even before Citizens United). It is wrong, and needs to be stopped, but won't be because elected officials are on the campaign contribution gravy train. All of this 'Russian hacking/meddling' story basically comes down to two things: the Clinton campaign's collusion with the DNC and members of the news media to disadvantage Bernie Sanders, and the vast role that money and advertising plays in US elections. Yet, neither of these two pressing issues are mentioned at the forefront of 'Russia' articles. I wonder why.....
Be honest with yourself. Who has done you more harm in your life: Wall Street or the Russians? I don't like that either are involved in the political system, but even if Russia has manipulated Trump in some way (which I find very hard to believe) chances are it would have NO effect on your average American. On the other hand we KNOW that Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil , etc. have long held power over our politicians and have used that power to enrich themselves and impoverish real Americans. Their effect has been clear and tangible.
Why, then, do most media outlets paint Russia as this existential threat and hardly ever deign to even mention the vast corporate corruption in American politics? Surely not because some of the largest corrupters literally own our major news outlets....
Be honest with yourself. Who has done you more harm in your life: Wall Street or the Russians? I don't like that either are involved in the political system, but even if Russia has manipulated Trump in some way (which I find very hard to believe) chances are it would have NO effect on your average American. On the other hand we KNOW that Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil , etc. have long held power over our politicians and have used that power to enrich themselves and impoverish real Americans. Their effect has been clear and tangible.
Why, then, do most media outlets paint Russia as this existential threat and hardly ever deign to even mention the vast corporate corruption in American politics? Surely not because some of the largest corrupters literally own our major news outlets....
9
Wall Street, K Street and the Kremlin are the Bermuda Triangle of American democracy.
4
Once again the Sanderista left reveals that it believes the same kind of conspiracy nonsense about the media as the Tea Party and the President.
Or was this an awkward translation from Russian?
Or was this an awkward translation from Russian?
1
re: Krausewitz
What a party and party members do in the USA is called politics, and the politicians and their supporters can be called to account. If agents act and spend from third countries under assumed names, for secret or enemy government aims,(a prime example of this were Imperial German attempts and offer to pay Mexico to make war on the USA in the Great War-this helped precipitate the US into World War One), then it is espionage.
What a party and party members do in the USA is called politics, and the politicians and their supporters can be called to account. If agents act and spend from third countries under assumed names, for secret or enemy government aims,(a prime example of this were Imperial German attempts and offer to pay Mexico to make war on the USA in the Great War-this helped precipitate the US into World War One), then it is espionage.
1
From RT to Facebook ads, the Russians (and other governments) have beat the US to the realization that we're now competing in a global media arena... We invented the internet -- how are we being caught with our pants down like this?
3
Can´t help it, but had to hold my belly reading about the "revelations" [Facebook doesn’t want to become the arbiter of what’s true and what’s not true”! and "Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections"].
How much more "naivef" can we get in principal acknowledgement that EVERYTHING is bought in some way - for reasons (Politics, Media, Companies)!
Influence will always take place as long money rules politics. Doesn´t matter if it is Trump, Lobbys and or media outlets.
Facebook´s "hidden power" is a two-sided sword; its main business model is data, like many other data collecting companies influencing societies on opinions! Regardless what pple think about Facebook, Zuckerberg´s has opened the doors to untapped territorries if it come to manipulation of opinions.
We need to change our political system in which American pple/voters elect the same pple over and over again, putting technocrats in congress and senate who act as little kings and who serve a common goal - to maintain a status quo - the constituents have no real representation and needed changes will be neglected.
Unless ppl request that politicians have only a limited term, no multi-billionaires allowed in Government, we may be able to re-structure democracy. If we do not manage this soon, democracy will become obsolete.
How much more "naivef" can we get in principal acknowledgement that EVERYTHING is bought in some way - for reasons (Politics, Media, Companies)!
Influence will always take place as long money rules politics. Doesn´t matter if it is Trump, Lobbys and or media outlets.
Facebook´s "hidden power" is a two-sided sword; its main business model is data, like many other data collecting companies influencing societies on opinions! Regardless what pple think about Facebook, Zuckerberg´s has opened the doors to untapped territorries if it come to manipulation of opinions.
We need to change our political system in which American pple/voters elect the same pple over and over again, putting technocrats in congress and senate who act as little kings and who serve a common goal - to maintain a status quo - the constituents have no real representation and needed changes will be neglected.
Unless ppl request that politicians have only a limited term, no multi-billionaires allowed in Government, we may be able to re-structure democracy. If we do not manage this soon, democracy will become obsolete.
3
This Stinks. FB through negligence aiding a foreign power.
5
Facebook was invented by post-adolescents for post-adolescents. It feeds off the human gossip gene. While you are busy posting pictures of what you had for breakfast, it's busy collecting data on you. You are no longer a person, you are an amalgam of data and some mysterious enterprises are selling that amalgam to other mysterious enterprises and making money off your post-adolescent desire to present yourself and stay connected to folks you barely know, but who have friended you and that you have click-liked.
The least we can do is constantly update privacy settings, use ad blockers, stay away from chatter box platforms, and never, ever let Alexa or another spying device into our households. Also, refuse to buy the refrigerator that alerts you to the need for replacement milk, the car that transmits data as to your whereabouts and driving habits, don't fall for apps that are alleged to simplify your life because Google and Facebook and Amazon and all the other whiz bang monopolies of the sharing economy are not sharing how much they are sharing of your human behavior for lucre, plain and simple.
Yes, the internet is amazing and I'm on it at the moment, but it has a colossal downside for every fraction of upside it proffers. Clicker, beware.
The least we can do is constantly update privacy settings, use ad blockers, stay away from chatter box platforms, and never, ever let Alexa or another spying device into our households. Also, refuse to buy the refrigerator that alerts you to the need for replacement milk, the car that transmits data as to your whereabouts and driving habits, don't fall for apps that are alleged to simplify your life because Google and Facebook and Amazon and all the other whiz bang monopolies of the sharing economy are not sharing how much they are sharing of your human behavior for lucre, plain and simple.
Yes, the internet is amazing and I'm on it at the moment, but it has a colossal downside for every fraction of upside it proffers. Clicker, beware.
15
'Troll' accounts? I am imaging a creature coming out from under the bridge opening a bank account, on account I am a great grandmother trying to keep an understanding of technology and new vocabulary. Please explain this concept as I haven't a clue where to put this odd appearing being who is up to no good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Amazing to me is the amount of people who think "news" comes from social media. One person makes a statement and before long, 100,000 people are repeating the false information...and believing it and swearing it's true. People will go to Facebook, Twitter or Snapshot in a heartbeat but will not pick up a newspaper. We have become very ignorant to what is true or false but too lazy to seek the truth of anything we read. No wonder Trump is in the WH.
7
Urban Dictionary has as good a definition as any as to what a "troll" is, as they pertain to the Internet:
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
Ah, Fakebook. Taking ad money from all comers and pimping its community's pictures if they can make it money...greed that is based on its subscribers' inordinate vanity provides a stupendous income and pays handsome dividends.
6
Basically, what we have is a President who was put in office by the Russians.
Why is no one demanding impeachment?
Why is no one demanding impeachment?
14
Demanding? Of whom? Paul Ryan is the Speaker and controls the agenda of the House, whose remit it is to initiate impeachment. At this time, Ryan will not do that. At this time, the GOP-led Senate would not convict Trump (the second and critical phase of the process.) Why then "demand" something that we cannot get at this time?
3
False accusation?
2
How can Americans impeach Putin? You cannot be talking about POTUS.
Your focus is way off.
If Russia used technology in this country against us, it engaged in cyberwarfare, or at least espionage. The USA must deal with the problem by dealing with the Russians. If the Russians' intent was to undermine and destabilize our electoral process, we would play right into their hands by engaging in impeachment of POTUS. It would be fractious and take over a year at least. Paralyzing the country. Then what? Will you impeach the VP->POTUS because he benefited form the Russian interference?
How about any Republican victory in Congress who rode the Republican wave?
Perhaps you just do not like POTUS / republicans and are using the Russians as a reason to delegitimatize his presidency / republican control?
Go after the Russians. Send a message to the Chinese, they are sophisticated to perpetrate as well.
Your focus is way off.
If Russia used technology in this country against us, it engaged in cyberwarfare, or at least espionage. The USA must deal with the problem by dealing with the Russians. If the Russians' intent was to undermine and destabilize our electoral process, we would play right into their hands by engaging in impeachment of POTUS. It would be fractious and take over a year at least. Paralyzing the country. Then what? Will you impeach the VP->POTUS because he benefited form the Russian interference?
How about any Republican victory in Congress who rode the Republican wave?
Perhaps you just do not like POTUS / republicans and are using the Russians as a reason to delegitimatize his presidency / republican control?
Go after the Russians. Send a message to the Chinese, they are sophisticated to perpetrate as well.
2
As mature and responsible adults, perhaps it's time to reevaluate our use, our role modeling thereof, and childrens access to Facebook. Just a thought...
8
Americans are proud (for objective reasons) for living in democracy since independence in the 18th century. Democracy is so firmly rooted that voting is not mandatory.
All of sudden. the fairness or even legality of the political system appears to be in doubt because of Russian apparently meddling in the last presidential election.
From a foreign observer standpoint, the fundamental question is: Did the Russians dupe American voters into electing the wrong candidate, Donald Trump?
All of sudden. the fairness or even legality of the political system appears to be in doubt because of Russian apparently meddling in the last presidential election.
From a foreign observer standpoint, the fundamental question is: Did the Russians dupe American voters into electing the wrong candidate, Donald Trump?
12
From a foreign observer standpoint, the fundamental question is: Do the Americans dupe citizens, in every democracy, in every election, into electing the wrong candidate?
Facebook is a de facto public utility. Society has now come to rely on the service provided by the utility to function. It is now time to provide more regulation-AND PENALTIES- to the utility company for not providing reliable service.
Facebook fiercely guards it proprietary products. Fine, not looking for the company to give up any of its property. The additional regulation and penalties will spur Facebook on to keep in compliance.
Now the penalties are going to have to be substantial if not draconian. Including felony level crimes for executives. Financial penalties will have to be such that even Zuckerberg https://www.forbes.com/profile/mark-zuckerberg/ would feel it. Additional penalties would be if they had repeated offenses they would HAVE to have a "federal monitor" under a consent decree inside their shops seeing what they do. If they do not keep their house in order, the Feds will step in.
THAT will get and hold Facebook's attention for sure (they will lose market share).
Facebook fiercely guards it proprietary products. Fine, not looking for the company to give up any of its property. The additional regulation and penalties will spur Facebook on to keep in compliance.
Now the penalties are going to have to be substantial if not draconian. Including felony level crimes for executives. Financial penalties will have to be such that even Zuckerberg https://www.forbes.com/profile/mark-zuckerberg/ would feel it. Additional penalties would be if they had repeated offenses they would HAVE to have a "federal monitor" under a consent decree inside their shops seeing what they do. If they do not keep their house in order, the Feds will step in.
THAT will get and hold Facebook's attention for sure (they will lose market share).
5
I disagree that Facebook is a de facto public utility. If it shut down tomorrow, we'd all survive and function just fine - not so with the likes of gas, electricity and water, which impact our daily lives in much more essential ways, from cooking our food, to bathing, to light sources, to keeping warm. Selfie-posting does not fall in the same category of basic services.
2
Even if to date, "there has been no evidence proving collusion in the hacking or other Russian activities" despite the "many meetings and contacts between Trump associates and Russians," there is evidence that Trump committed an obstruction of justice on various fronts.
No doubt there will be more documents emerging that will offer insight into his campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump doesn't have a clear conscience, which explains why he fired Comey and sought to convince others to discontinue the investigations.
No doubt there will be more documents emerging that will offer insight into his campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump doesn't have a clear conscience, which explains why he fired Comey and sought to convince others to discontinue the investigations.
11
There is no evidence proving collusion, and therefore no crime, but Trump obstructed justice by interfering with the prosecution of that crime.
Obstruction of justice is interfering with prosecution of a crime.
You can't obstruct something that isn't happening.
So no crime; no obstruction.
Alan Dershowitz made that crystal clear.
But don't let that stop you, von.
Ideology trumps anything - even reality.
Obstruction of justice is interfering with prosecution of a crime.
You can't obstruct something that isn't happening.
So no crime; no obstruction.
Alan Dershowitz made that crystal clear.
But don't let that stop you, von.
Ideology trumps anything - even reality.
2
I don't listen to Trump's lawyer, Alan Dershowitz. I gather information from unbiased sources and form my own opinion.
3
Fakebook...
And those ads averaged out to $25 a pop.
Thanks for vindicating my decision to avoid it like the plague.
And those ads averaged out to $25 a pop.
Thanks for vindicating my decision to avoid it like the plague.
10
Facebook's accounts department is inept. Especially during the election when we all suspected fake accounts and bots they chose to stall any action until a few days after the election. I find that absolutely irresponsible. It might be fun to see family and friend's photos, but frankly I am tired of a platform that can be manipulated so blindly and mishandled so ineptly.
I miss the old days.
I miss the old days.
14
I already knew that Facebook has successfully lured the world into zombie land where humans no longer interact ---just stare mindlessly as their phones. Life events are pitifully viewed through the Facebook lens.
And now we find out Facebook contributed to the destruction of our democracy and just maybe the destruction of the world if our frustrated dictator -wanna -be has a particularly bad day.
Awesome!
And now we find out Facebook contributed to the destruction of our democracy and just maybe the destruction of the world if our frustrated dictator -wanna -be has a particularly bad day.
Awesome!
16
Facebook lied 3 times before admitting to this - the minimum of their involvement. I want a class action lawsuit brought against them.
14
Facebook is a destructive for all the (mostly) young people who spend 8 or more hours a day on it.
Instead of learning how to make friends face-to-face, these young people send trivial Facebook messages to each other every day.
Even when they go out on dates, or eat meals together, one can see them looking at their phones to "catch up" on their Facebook messages.
These young people do not know how to talk to each other face-to-face.
Facebook is the single greatest contributor to lowering the emotional and social intelligence of millions of young people worldwide today.
I recommend a total boycott of Facebook.
Instead of learning how to make friends face-to-face, these young people send trivial Facebook messages to each other every day.
Even when they go out on dates, or eat meals together, one can see them looking at their phones to "catch up" on their Facebook messages.
These young people do not know how to talk to each other face-to-face.
Facebook is the single greatest contributor to lowering the emotional and social intelligence of millions of young people worldwide today.
I recommend a total boycott of Facebook.
17
Even more reason to move quickly to get rid of the absurd electoral college. It has long outlived its purpose and opens up our elections to much easier manipulation in this age of advanced technology. It's time to actually make our so called "democracy" a true democracy.
14
We enjoy getting news of a scattered family on Facebook, but this is seeming more and more of a dubious treat. Minimally regulated, it is a vehicle for lies, distortion and toxic bullying as well as innocent communication.
3
If news reports are correct that after months and months of denial, Facebook is finally admitting the sales of $100,000 in ad space to the Russians in order to hack the 2016 US presidential election. While $100K may seem like a minuscule amount to a company with the annual revenue of Facebook, it still would appear to be a "Red Flag" even if disguised under fake names and in smaller increments. Facebook assumedgly has protective measures in place to prevent crimes like illicit drug sales, prostitution and fraud from purveyance inside the FB forum. One can only assume that some level of legal & moral consciousness is an integral part of Facebook advertising sales.
1
If Zuckerberg can't handle the due diligence and protection of our country from Russia with his Facebook, he should be investigated and chastised, for his failure to do so. Et tu swamp?
38
Too bad that there's so many comments written by trolls on the internet. I suspect that a lot of it is generated by political opposition research campaigns and by foreign governments. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?hp&actio...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
5
Yes, in addition to ads purchased by Russia, their trolls also post many, many comments online, posing as regular users. They do this in Europe, where the practice is well-known, but in the US, too many people think it's inconceivable since we're protected by a force field.
9
I noticed this well before the election, but with bots and AI this problem will go far beyond the "just dont pay attention" solution.
Hardly a shock. The Russian firm Digital Sky bought 2% of the firm pre-IPO and unidentified Russian money was part of a Goldman Sachs pre-IPO buy. Don't expect Mueller, et al to even peak at the unsavory characters involved with this outfit.
6
it baffles me that Russian opposition to Clinton is repeatedly reported absent what appears to be the obvious underlying motive. It's got nothing to do with Trump or any nefarious purpose. Rather, as POLITICO has reported, Hillary was an outspoken supporter of the anti-Putin demonstrations, and repeatedly attacked the legitimacy of Russia's elections. As Secretary of State, she actively sought to undermine Putin and his purported popular support.
POLITICO, a liberal news site, characterized Russian election tampering as vengeful dirty tricks. The Russians were out for revenge against Clinton because of her prior activism.. Whatever role Trump may have played was secondary. Putin was convinced that Clinton had been out to get him and he sought to return the favor. And Putin's dealings with Trump, whatever they may have been, were not at the heart of the matter.
Americans have long attacked the fairness of Russian elections, probably for good reason. Still, the fact that the Russians would respond aggressively should be no surprise to anyone.
POLITICO, a liberal news site, characterized Russian election tampering as vengeful dirty tricks. The Russians were out for revenge against Clinton because of her prior activism.. Whatever role Trump may have played was secondary. Putin was convinced that Clinton had been out to get him and he sought to return the favor. And Putin's dealings with Trump, whatever they may have been, were not at the heart of the matter.
Americans have long attacked the fairness of Russian elections, probably for good reason. Still, the fact that the Russians would respond aggressively should be no surprise to anyone.
7
The true scope of the Trump campaign in social media manipulation has yet to be determined. And their work with the Russians on this may be secondary only in the sense that, rather than generating the bulk of the fake accounts, comments, and ads themselves, they helped the Russians target key districts, by giving the Russians info on voters in those districts. So while secondary, the evidence is mounting that the Trump campaign directly colluded with Russia.
6
Just because Putin is anti-Clinton does not mean there was no collusion in helping Trump, and that is far from secondary. The motive of why he was anti-Clinton is beside the point.
1
Putin's grudge against Clinton is common knowledge. There's more to it than that. Russia has affection for authoritarian tycoons. The Kremlin saw in Donald Trump a dealmaker unconcerned with human rights and democracy, someone who would provide them with breathing space in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. How many times did Trump disparage NATO, a security organization Vladimir Putin is paranoid about? Russia also knows Trump is divisive, and further enflaming American politics (and sabotaging the Western alliance) is an objective.
The President, both before and after he was elected, repeatedly praised Putin. That's the short of it. We shall leave out the possibility that compromising material or financial arrangements exist. But do be aware that when Russian oligarchs look to purchase property in the U.S., their preferred locations are New York and Florida. Donald Trump did most of his business in New York and Florida. Suffice it to say that if Hillary Clinton had squared off against Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, Russia hawks both, the Kremlin would not have engaged in similar tactics.
There may be no there there, as it were, but rest assured that this was more than merely a hurt-Clinton campaign. Russia wanted Trump to be president not merely over Clinton, but over anyone. (Ask the heads of the intelligence agencies.) Maybe it's backfired, though, as everything he does vis-à-vis Russia is now highlighted.
The President, both before and after he was elected, repeatedly praised Putin. That's the short of it. We shall leave out the possibility that compromising material or financial arrangements exist. But do be aware that when Russian oligarchs look to purchase property in the U.S., their preferred locations are New York and Florida. Donald Trump did most of his business in New York and Florida. Suffice it to say that if Hillary Clinton had squared off against Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, Russia hawks both, the Kremlin would not have engaged in similar tactics.
There may be no there there, as it were, but rest assured that this was more than merely a hurt-Clinton campaign. Russia wanted Trump to be president not merely over Clinton, but over anyone. (Ask the heads of the intelligence agencies.) Maybe it's backfired, though, as everything he does vis-à-vis Russia is now highlighted.
2
How does this acknowledgment by Facebook coordinate with the activities of Cambridge Analytics? Is there a connection? It was my understanding that they too used sophisticated targeting to influence the election. Has the unregulated internet made it impossible to ever have a near honest election process again?
10
According to a BBC interview with a head of Cambridge, Facebook execs and YouTube execs and Google execs worked right alongside Cambridge helping them precision target US voters with specific ads/bots.
2
"But the new measures do not directly affect Facebook ads. Advertisers pay to have particular Facebook posts displayed high in the news feeds of whatever group of people is targeted."
This seems false based on https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/08/blocking-ads-from-pages-that-repeat...
This seems false based on https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/08/blocking-ads-from-pages-that-repeat...
In spite of feeling like an outcast for years because I have refused to join all the lemmings who "are on Facebook" I now feel totally justified. What I knew of Mark Zuckerberg from early on convinced me that I wanted no part of what he touched. It will be greatly interesting to see where this goes and what damage (I strongly hope) it does to the mountain of bucks gleaned by his insatiable greed.
19
In one sense, I am disgusted by how LITTLE money was exchanged here. How much did it cost for Facebook to sell-out our country? At the beginning of this article it mentions ad revenue totaling $100,000. Later, there's mention of other ads costing $50,000.
As a percentage of Facebook's total revenue this is miniscule. They sold us out for a pittance.
As a percentage of Facebook's total revenue this is miniscule. They sold us out for a pittance.
41
$50K from 2200 ads, a little less than $25 a pop...
As Churchill said, "we have established what you are. Now we are haggling over the price."
As Churchill said, "we have established what you are. Now we are haggling over the price."
6
Trump campaign paid Facebook $85M, Facebook lied 3 times about its involvement before finally admitting to this much - seriously doubt this is all there is to it.
4
Folks ought to stop using Facebook. There is no upside to its use, and every downside.
23
I followed the link in the article to the "Internet Research Agency" in St. Petersburg and read a fascinating piece of long-form journalism about that troll farm.
To think that those poor people are employed to post hateful comments by the hundreds a day, not even believing what they write - talk about a soul-crushing job - to think that those trolls paid to post comments to defend Putin, attack Ukrania etc. could be the manpower that upended the American election is just mind-boggling. Let's hand it to Russia, they did a clever job of psycho-social engineering to get their man, who is a debtor of Russian banks, to be president of the U.S. And now the country is destroying itself, no need of a Russian army invasion. Just as an example, think that D.T. has just rescinded important regulations about building on flood-prone areas -- just a few days before Harvey hit.
As a friend and admirer of the US I can't swallow how this one man, hand-picked by Putin, can have so much power, can singlehandedly do so much harm to your country.
And to the rest of us along with it, by means of bad examples in social areas like gay rights or marijuana. Not to mention the psychological toll on us all, of having to see that ugly scowling orange face every day, lying, insulting, saying and doing outrageous things.
Resist!
To think that those poor people are employed to post hateful comments by the hundreds a day, not even believing what they write - talk about a soul-crushing job - to think that those trolls paid to post comments to defend Putin, attack Ukrania etc. could be the manpower that upended the American election is just mind-boggling. Let's hand it to Russia, they did a clever job of psycho-social engineering to get their man, who is a debtor of Russian banks, to be president of the U.S. And now the country is destroying itself, no need of a Russian army invasion. Just as an example, think that D.T. has just rescinded important regulations about building on flood-prone areas -- just a few days before Harvey hit.
As a friend and admirer of the US I can't swallow how this one man, hand-picked by Putin, can have so much power, can singlehandedly do so much harm to your country.
And to the rest of us along with it, by means of bad examples in social areas like gay rights or marijuana. Not to mention the psychological toll on us all, of having to see that ugly scowling orange face every day, lying, insulting, saying and doing outrageous things.
Resist!
36
The Most Recommended comment has it wrong, when it says, "Cybersecurity is a national security issue. We need an administration that takes this matter seriously, and one in whom the people of this country have trust...."
Yes, cybersecurity is a national security issue, but the problem is not that the Trump Administration does not take this seriously but that the American people do not. Everyone wants security and privacy, but no one wants to give up his or her internet connected gadgets.
Most of America's infrastructure is now internet connected and, thus, vulnerable to sabotage from any of myriad sources. Whether it's voting, flight control, or the electric grid, American's insatiable, self-destructive desire for gadgetry makes us incredibly vulnerable. And for those who think driverless cars and drones will be immune, I would just note the F.D.A. has put out notices that even cardiac pacemakers are subject to hacking.
Today the House unanimously passed a bill allowing 100,000 driverless cars on the road while exempting them from the usual safety regulations, at the same time cutting the states out of most of their regulatory authority. Unanimity, Republicans and Democrats, Trumpistas and Feel The Berners alike. That's not Trump's doing; that's the result of Congress feeling that is what their constituents want.
Yes, cybersecurity is a national security issue, but the problem is not that the Trump Administration does not take this seriously but that the American people do not. Everyone wants security and privacy, but no one wants to give up his or her internet connected gadgets.
Most of America's infrastructure is now internet connected and, thus, vulnerable to sabotage from any of myriad sources. Whether it's voting, flight control, or the electric grid, American's insatiable, self-destructive desire for gadgetry makes us incredibly vulnerable. And for those who think driverless cars and drones will be immune, I would just note the F.D.A. has put out notices that even cardiac pacemakers are subject to hacking.
Today the House unanimously passed a bill allowing 100,000 driverless cars on the road while exempting them from the usual safety regulations, at the same time cutting the states out of most of their regulatory authority. Unanimity, Republicans and Democrats, Trumpistas and Feel The Berners alike. That's not Trump's doing; that's the result of Congress feeling that is what their constituents want.
2
It's disgusting that Facebook is complicit in disrupting our democracy by selling ads to a foreign government to sway the election. Apparently Facebook has been denying that they sold pro-Russian ads until today. Why did this company decide to level with the public?
12
Probably because it showed up in Mueller' s investigation of Cambridge Analytics and the money trail, and Zuckerberg is just trying to stay ahead of the news front.
3
Mueller only recently told them to come in for questioning. If they'd lied to Mueller as they've been lying to everyone else, they'd be thrown in prison.
2
Since Fox News and its bombardment of manipulated news, the rest of the world has realised that the American public is gullible and started shoving into our throats convenient candidates and causes.
19
I have seen those fake news on Facebook and other social media all throughout the election. I did not read them because their headlines looked so grotesque it was pretty clear they were false news. I would like to think I am not that unique in exhibiting an average level of intellectual discernment. If so many of our citizens bought into - or eagerly ate up - these fake news, isn't that part of the problem?
8
Yup. Too many Americans let things run their minds that shouldn't, like their worst emotions, things their religious leader told them, things their neo-Confederate leaders told them, etc.
3
The only responsibility Facebook has in this situation so to do everything it can to increase shareholder value. It is not their responsibility to filter "fake news" or propaganda. It would be fiduciarily irresponsible for them to not accept ad revenue from a prospective client (given common boundaries of decency and the like). We are indeed doomed if we are waiting for the 'all clear' from Facebook on the status of the veracity of what is posted on the site. Aside from personal attacks, hate speech, libel and outright slander, Facebook should take every penny from ad revenue they can. Forget investing in developing algorithms to filter mis-information. Take that money and make a (tax deductible!) donation to the PEW Center, or Columbia School of Journalism, or some state ed course in media literacy.
Facebook (and all social media platforms) will always be run by someone (or some people) who's views run contrary to someone else's views, and there is no way to ever know where the true intentions of the fake news referees lie. Frankly I'd feel a whole lot better knowing all they cared about was making money and left the assessment of the veracity of the content they provide up to me.
Woe is our country if people make decisions on important issues solely based on stuff they read on Facebook...
Facebook (and all social media platforms) will always be run by someone (or some people) who's views run contrary to someone else's views, and there is no way to ever know where the true intentions of the fake news referees lie. Frankly I'd feel a whole lot better knowing all they cared about was making money and left the assessment of the veracity of the content they provide up to me.
Woe is our country if people make decisions on important issues solely based on stuff they read on Facebook...
3
How utterly cynical. Facebook has a responsibility to be good corporate citizens. If they reap the benefits of being an American company, they better show they are concerned that the country isn't being manipulated by a foreign power, especially one that is actively hostile to the United States.
13
Facebook is not a Police force and who decides who and what foreign government or group is posting relevant comments like even on this comment section. Doubt Facebook committed any misdeeds here - I'll be waiting for some evidence or charges of wrongdoing.
From the moment that the Russians purchased ads on Facebook, set up fake user accounts to post to comment threads, etc. and used these methods to spam American voters, Facebook has been aware of the Russian origin of these things, and their destructive nature. It's their duty to do what they can to stem the tide--when a source is obviously the official Russian propaganda machine, pretending not to be, then there's no First Amendment breach by shutting them out. It's wrong for any entity, like Facebook, to usher in another government's trolls to wreak havoc on a country's elections, just for a few bucks.
9
This proves, once again, the only thing big business is ever loyal to is the almighty dollar, or in the case of Mark Zuckerberg, the Putin ruble...
8
I worked for a major market newspaper for many years in the advertising division and believe me, all Responsible media companies vet their political advertising thoroughly prior to publication. It is called responsibility to the public. And by the way, ALL advertising is paid in advance of publication. There is no way Facebook could not know who was placing the ads. This stinks to high heavens, especially with their repeated denials of any knowledge of the situation prior to coming clean. Facebook has sold America out. I hope people desert their platform in droves.
27
It would seem they're on to something here.
Trump cut the spending cap deal with the Dems immediately after this story broke.
Trump cut the spending cap deal with the Dems immediately after this story broke.
7
My approach to ads on Facebook is to tell Mark Zuckerberg they aren't relevant to me. I never click on one of them. If something pops up from someone I don't know I check to see if it's an ad by using the little down arrow. It's really annoying when I buy something I didn't see on Facebook to have an ad pop up immediately after. Some of the ad placers will let you opt out, and I've done that. Facebook users could definitely be more sophisticated. Zuckerberg relies on our ignorance.
3
That's the thing--unless there's a push to develop more people's skills to make them more sophisticated in their news input, there will still be many people who are gluttons for clicking on inflammatory ads to "inform" them of some fake outrage they weren't aware of (since it's not real), or just to confirm their existing biases.
1
Out of a billion dollars spent on political ads during the election cycle, Russians might have spent 100 thousand dollars. They also may have made 470 fake accounts.
470 fake accounts -- that's probably how many fake friends I have.
Gee, that's a smoking gun for sure.
Sorry-- I can't stop laughing. Please. Don't. Stop.
470 fake accounts -- that's probably how many fake friends I have.
Gee, that's a smoking gun for sure.
Sorry-- I can't stop laughing. Please. Don't. Stop.
Nobody said it's a smoking gun for proof of collusion between Trump and Russia. The scary thing is they are improving their capabilities of tampering in out elections and Trump isn't taking it seriously. They're only going to improve on their ability to interfere in our elections and we have to do something to stop it. I'm also laughing too. at the fact that you don't realize how quick information can be shared on facebook and social media. Especially over a long period of time. If they focused on key swing states during the election, hundreds of thousands of people could be exposed to these trolls and fake news.
2
Are you a bot? Are you a paid political agitator? What you write here is exactly the sort of shaming slanted response that shows up as part of this distorted Facebook advertising. Don't be part of the problem.
3
470 fake accounts can pump out thousands of manipulative ads (currently Facebook is admitting to only 3000 Russian-bought ads--there may have been far more). But the number of fake comments they can post can run into the tens or hundreds of thousands, and be influential enough to tip the balance in key districts.
Facebook denied these allegations for months. Now it appears the reporting from Time Magazine was spot on from the beginning. Perhaps they should consider incorporating in Russia.
8
To understand how this technological malfeasance could impact public perception and voting, think about the havoc high frequency trading would have on our markets without regulation as a circuit breaker.
The 2017 election was a political "flash crash",
The 2017 election was a political "flash crash",
11
It is Facebook's responsibility to society to publicly acknowledge that Russia has planted fake advertising on their pages to effect the oldest strategy there is, that of "Divide and Conquer". Facebook must advise all their readers of this crime with a semi-permanent post and not simply rely on the media to make a one day disclosure that is soon forgotten.
We are faced with an attempt by Russia to foment civil chaos and war in America and I am struggling with the fact that Trump was so instrumental in dividing and distressing our nation during his campaigning and now as President. Even more alarming is that the Republican Congress people remain on the sidelines, even relishing having Trump in the White House.
Here in New York, we have a paper record of all the voting in that the voting is done on paper ballots that are scanned electronically, but that paper ballot remains. I propose that we now adapt to the reality of election interference by saving all written ballots and rescanning and reading them later after the election in what I would term, a confirmation tally of voting to legitimize and protect our treasured democracy and voting despite future interference.
I always fear superpower war and future revelations may enrage the public to action, but a confirmation tally would greatly reduce the possibility of conflict and legitimize our fragile democracy.
Don't get mad, solve the problem effectively and calmly.
We are faced with an attempt by Russia to foment civil chaos and war in America and I am struggling with the fact that Trump was so instrumental in dividing and distressing our nation during his campaigning and now as President. Even more alarming is that the Republican Congress people remain on the sidelines, even relishing having Trump in the White House.
Here in New York, we have a paper record of all the voting in that the voting is done on paper ballots that are scanned electronically, but that paper ballot remains. I propose that we now adapt to the reality of election interference by saving all written ballots and rescanning and reading them later after the election in what I would term, a confirmation tally of voting to legitimize and protect our treasured democracy and voting despite future interference.
I always fear superpower war and future revelations may enrage the public to action, but a confirmation tally would greatly reduce the possibility of conflict and legitimize our fragile democracy.
Don't get mad, solve the problem effectively and calmly.
10
And that second round of scanning the paper ballots should be done by an entirely different company with no ties to the first, and whose personnel are vetted as if they were applying for top secret security clearances, with background checks going back to grade school.
1
why anyone reads the ads on FB or takes therm seriously is beyond me. if you go to the store and buy toilet bowl cleaner? the next day or the next hour? you get ads on FB for toilet bowl cleaner. you could have bought the cleaner for a friend or relative.... you may have returned it later..... these ads are garbage.
6
Honestly, I have adblock, so I don't see ads at all. But, I'm not thinking about myself the way you are.
I am more concerned about the 'innocent' people...senior citizens, children, young adults...all these people simply don't know any better. They are not as privileged as you are, and as such, you should take pity on them and protect them the way you protect yourself, instead of making excuses to feel no empathy.
Where is your humanity?
I am more concerned about the 'innocent' people...senior citizens, children, young adults...all these people simply don't know any better. They are not as privileged as you are, and as such, you should take pity on them and protect them the way you protect yourself, instead of making excuses to feel no empathy.
Where is your humanity?
4
reply to dad or
Many senior citizens can't be bothered with FB and I'm one of them.
(see my note above posted about 5 minutes ago.)
Many senior citizens can't be bothered with FB and I'm one of them.
(see my note above posted about 5 minutes ago.)
2
What is Facebook's complicity in this entire international debacle? Apparently they have no duty to vet their advertisers. It makes me laugh (and not an amused laugh) when I remember the movie ("The Social Network") about the founding of Facebook and their so-called mantra of no advertisements. Zuckerberg will have a lot to answer for in future years if he actually believes he can run for President; at least he would be less horrible than Trump, which is a very low bar.
8
If he wants to be President? We already have a man child in the office. I hope I don't live that long to see MZ in the White House in any official capacity. MZ's greed has userpted America's democracy. Okay that"s hyperbolic, but the so called infantile tech leaders do not have any understanding of public perceptions or understanding. Stupididity is a more dangerous enemy of good than evil and we are awash in stupidity. FB just capitalizes off that stupidity.
2
Those who (correctly) point out that $100k is not a lot of money are underestimating Facebook as an advertising platform. Well targeted ads with compelling creative can see "viral organic growth". An ad that experiences viral organic growth (likes, comments, shares) can end up with millions of views for a few dollars.
13
That's right. And multiply a single ad being seen by millions of Facebook users, times 3000 ads that Facebook has admitted to so far, and that can add up to quite a few views--saturation level, with just 3000 ads.
1
With all this evidence of Russian meddling, can we have a do-over of the 2016 Presidential election? How about next Tuesday?
32
What is missing here is the fact they had interest in OUR election(s). Enough to spend any money or time on it. Do you really want Russians involvement at all? That is definitely not the way to make us great?! And theGOP will say no Russian involvement they are nice people. That's why they had their fireplaces burning round the clock last week in 100 degree temperature in San Francisco as they were being thrown out of our country. And they will continue to interfere in our elections as they did in France, and many others. They want influence and hey, they have it.
15
Way back in 2012, facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg was cozying up to Russia. He was hosted there by Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, seeking to expand into Russia.
Now, after denying it ad nauseam, facebook admits it may have sold as many as 3,300 ads to Russian operatives seeking to install Donald Trump in the White House.
What other connections exist between Zuckerberg and Russia? What connections are there between Zuckerberg and Trump? Is facebook up to its spendy little knickers in this ugly scandal? We really need to know.
The plot thickens. How many puppets does Putin control in our country?
Now, after denying it ad nauseam, facebook admits it may have sold as many as 3,300 ads to Russian operatives seeking to install Donald Trump in the White House.
What other connections exist between Zuckerberg and Russia? What connections are there between Zuckerberg and Trump? Is facebook up to its spendy little knickers in this ugly scandal? We really need to know.
The plot thickens. How many puppets does Putin control in our country?
16
Did you not read the article you are commenting on? "Most of the 3,000 ads did not refer to particular candidates" and " there has been no evidence proving collusion."
You can't be serious. Facebook, a company with over $400 billion of market value and over $25 billion in annual revenue, is a Russian patsy because of $100k of Russian ad revenue?
It has nothing to do with these paltry ads. They certainly were not the reason Zuckerberg was cozying up to Medvedev already in 2012. That is the point. And why did it take facebook so long to acknowledge its role? Who else has been cozying up to Russian kleptocrats? Think about it.
I want to know how many impressions those ads got...that is, how many times were they exposed/visible and to how many accounts?
4
I would appreciate it if Facebook would let me know if I am being manipulated by ads from a foreign arbiter OR a domestic one. The entire concept of manipulating our opinions by marketing and advertising is ghoulish and such common every day fare, that we don't even notice it anymore.
5
I suppose it's not drawing much interest, for a number of reasons. One- we also work to fix elections outside our borders, depose leaders of countries we disagree with, or are competitive with. Its par for the course, for all sides.
Secondly, the sum of money is so minute at $100k, given the size of spend that happens during primaries, and the main election by all sides, it seems somewhat of an inconsequential amount does it not?
Secondly, the sum of money is so minute at $100k, given the size of spend that happens during primaries, and the main election by all sides, it seems somewhat of an inconsequential amount does it not?
1
Go ahead, soft peddle it, but a little sign reasoning here can lead to larger things, like actual collusion with Russia.
4
I find it difficult to believe that $100,000 is all it took to subvert the US election. Difficult still is the notion that Facebook ads can change voter perception or the fate of an election. Its good PR for Facebook but not a convincing argument.
4
Rajiv Kumar, this is only the latest unexpected revelation. It is illegal, but it is not the biggest help received from Russia by Trump that we know about. The hacking and timed selected revelations of Democratic emails was certainly of greater effect, and probably cost a lot more. We do not yet know if the Russian hacking of voting lists and machines had any results, but making those attempts cost more than $100K.
8
Further down in the article, it said that there was another bunch of ads bought by a US entity but with the language set to Russian. I have a feeling that what the news media reported today is just the beginning of more to come. Drip, drip, drip.
7
It is not clear that it was only $100,000 - until today, Facebook maintained it could find no evidence of any Russian ad-buying - but your point is well taken - many Americans especially, my "conservative" friends seem to be very susceptible to absurd hoaxes that confirm their biases. It would be a full time job responding every crazy story that they repeat and amplify. If the story is "good enough" it quickly spreads - and people are more likely to believe posts coming from their facebook friends. I am sure that some liberals are also susceptible to bias confirming hoaxes - but (in my experience) not nearly to the extent as on the right. Whether the Russian interference in our election which also included leaked hacked emails was sufficient to tip the election in favor of Trump we may never know. We do hope to find out to what extent there was collusion between Americans and Russian Intelligence to throw the election to Trump. If your post was meant to imply that Americans should be humiliated by this entire fiasco - I sadly agree.
7
100000 is so blasé. Clinton made 250000 in one Wall Street speech. Come on Russians show your A game
4
For those of you thinking that this is a paltry sum of money I don't think you are considering the geometric progression involved when one person shares that ad to 2 people, those 2 people to 2 each, i.e. 4, etc......
In the chessboard problem of a wheat grain doubled on successive squares of a 64 square chessboard the number of grains of wheat on the last square would be 18,446,744,073,709,551,615
Replace the squares with people targeted as likely to believe fakenews and the Russian investment paid big dividends.
In the chessboard problem of a wheat grain doubled on successive squares of a 64 square chessboard the number of grains of wheat on the last square would be 18,446,744,073,709,551,615
Replace the squares with people targeted as likely to believe fakenews and the Russian investment paid big dividends.
11
Ah, but that was enough to create a lot of havoc. I think the Russians got more bang for their buck than did the banks that paid Secretary Clinton for her speeches.
2
Just one MORE reason why I don't do the anti-social media....
23
Maybe Mark Zuckerberg just wants to run for President and has created some of his own fake news.
3
How do you say Facebook in Russian??? Losers.
11
Money laundering??? Or at least, dirty laundry.
11
You are embarrassing yourselves with the amount of desperation exhibited in these articles. How much did the Democratic party spend on the past election? Now you want your readers to believe that "more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads" cost her the election. Do you really believe your readers are that naive?
4
You are comparing the number to million dollar television or cable ads. Social media advertising is relatively cheap. If you target the correct demographic and region (among other parameters) $100K goes far.
19
The subject is whether the Russians tried to influence the United States of America's election. They did.
13
It was not these ads by themselves that did the damage. Rather their combination of the trolls trashing her on Internet posting pages, Trump , Fox , and. Breitbart insisting they were true. Add the Comey letter along with WikiLeaks and all together they could have been a major reason for her losing the election. Recall many people saying they voted for the less diabolical of the two candidates. I saw that said as recently as yesterday. Face it Trump largely had none of this to overcome.
1
Someone tell me, what difference does it makes whether the Kremlin bought election ads on Facebook or the Koch brothers did?
15
@Waste - the difference is a foreign government is by law prohibited from advertising to influence our elections. The Koch bros are unfortunately American so their ads are not against the law.
1
Actually it is illegal for a foreign government to provide anything of value in an attempt to influence an American election. The Koch family these days usually buys its political influence legally.
7
The difference is fairly obvious: the Koch brothers are American.
2
Who believes anything on FB? Scammers and bad people everywhere. Since it is poorly monitored the unsuspecting are easy targets.
7
So now the left wants censorship to protect the dumb American public from encountering advertisements that promote thought and discourse about controversial political topics....when the advertiser is someone they don't like.
What difference does it make whether a political issue is raised by a left wing person or a right wing person, a citizen or a non-citizen?
This is just another effort to force political correctness in order to advance thought control.
What difference does it make whether a political issue is raised by a left wing person or a right wing person, a citizen or a non-citizen?
This is just another effort to force political correctness in order to advance thought control.
2
Thought control? The issue is whether a concerted effort came out of Russia to try to influence our election. There was such an effort. It was covert. Don't try to change the subject.
13
It's a sad sign of how far we've sunk as a culture when abiding by federal law is conflated with "political correctness." Then again, we live in a time when "political" and "criminal" are often synonymous.
2
Collusion.
8
Facebook not only owns your photos, they sold us out! They are the weak link in our unguarded Democracy.
13
Spending $100,000 to $50,000 and opening 470 fake accounts to pay for 2,200 to 3,000 ads during the last election, is a sure sign that the Russians intend to influence the election for the minority president. If the Internet Research Agency is know for using "troll" accounts, why has it taken so long for the ads to be identified as Russian Intervention, especially when specific areas of the US were targeted? This specificity of targeting raises multifple questions about Russian knowledge of US politics and how that knowledge was obtained.
14
I want to see these ads. I want them made public. I want people who saw them and let them influence their vote to see them....
My theory: Jared Kushner handled Trump's social media campaign. You can hire Russians online in 5 minutes to do link campaigns, post bad reviews on competitor sites etc. All incognito. I assume Mueller is investigating all of this...following the money.
My theory: Jared Kushner handled Trump's social media campaign. You can hire Russians online in 5 minutes to do link campaigns, post bad reviews on competitor sites etc. All incognito. I assume Mueller is investigating all of this...following the money.
45
LJezard: "I want to see these ads."
Me too! I don't believe the ads could possibly be any more divisive than OpEds published by the Times or propaganda released by major political parties or anything that can be heard on right-wing talk radio.
There are "3,000 ads". Let's see all of them. Let the American people judge the ads.
NB: I don't believe anything else in your comment, but your calling for the publication of the ads is reason enough for me to give you a recommend. :-)
Me too! I don't believe the ads could possibly be any more divisive than OpEds published by the Times or propaganda released by major political parties or anything that can be heard on right-wing talk radio.
There are "3,000 ads". Let's see all of them. Let the American people judge the ads.
NB: I don't believe anything else in your comment, but your calling for the publication of the ads is reason enough for me to give you a recommend. :-)
I don't like it one bit. But we've been meddling in other countries' elections since forever.
8
That's no excuse to let our guard down. That comment is more appropriate for another article. It's not a 'reason' to allow this activity to persist. It's just like a 'Jacobs Ladder'...it forces the players to constantly 'up' their attacks, until what? Full scale war? Is that the end game?
I hope not. Let's make friends instead of enemies.
I hope not. Let's make friends instead of enemies.
3
While it's quite obvious that foreign powers, especially Russia, should be prevented from influencing US elections, let's put this in perspective.
$100,000 is 0.00033 percent of Facebook's $30 billion in yearly advertising revenue. Smaller than big pharma's daily Facebook advertising budget.
$100,000 is 0.0053 percent of the roughly $1.9 billion in big money contributions paid to the Trump and Clinton campaigns.
Which is the greater evil?
$100,000 is 0.00033 percent of Facebook's $30 billion in yearly advertising revenue. Smaller than big pharma's daily Facebook advertising budget.
$100,000 is 0.0053 percent of the roughly $1.9 billion in big money contributions paid to the Trump and Clinton campaigns.
Which is the greater evil?
2
It is not just foreign countries who may be injecting trolls into America's social media websites but American companies as well.
In particular, I am thinking of Cambridge Analytica partially owned by recluse billionaire and former financial backer of Trump. He is currently The financial backer of Steve Bannon of now Breitbart fame.
Cambridge Analytica is suspected of using subcontractors for trolling during the Brexit campaign in England. Which of course supported Nigel Farage at the time.
Nigel is best buddies with - surprise - Donald Trump. And add into the "coincidence" factor the fact that Nigel was photographed leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy where Julian Assange of Wikileaks lives. When Nigel was asked why he was there he 'could not recall'.
If Robert Mercer released tons of trolls during the campaign at least we can say they were financed by Americans. Is this the new normal for political campaigns?
And what else will trolling be employed to target on social media?
Fake accounts, fake news. How out of control will this get?
In particular, I am thinking of Cambridge Analytica partially owned by recluse billionaire and former financial backer of Trump. He is currently The financial backer of Steve Bannon of now Breitbart fame.
Cambridge Analytica is suspected of using subcontractors for trolling during the Brexit campaign in England. Which of course supported Nigel Farage at the time.
Nigel is best buddies with - surprise - Donald Trump. And add into the "coincidence" factor the fact that Nigel was photographed leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy where Julian Assange of Wikileaks lives. When Nigel was asked why he was there he 'could not recall'.
If Robert Mercer released tons of trolls during the campaign at least we can say they were financed by Americans. Is this the new normal for political campaigns?
And what else will trolling be employed to target on social media?
Fake accounts, fake news. How out of control will this get?
49
Judging from some of the responses here, it appears that Russian trolls have invaded the NY Times Comments section as well.
38
That has been obvious for a while.
4
This was painfully apparent during the primaries last year.
1
If this were chess instead and we had just realized we'd been beaten at our own game we could simply wipe the board off the table and storm out of the room like a spoiled loser. Now instead of going the inexpensive route we have to spend all our own time and money to investigate it to death, making us then look like a stupid spoiled loser.
2
Well, considering how much we have lost in credibility, prestige, and global standing by having an electoral college president, I would say we have a right to be angry.
7
I would just say that easy as it is to blame the electoral college for Trump, his election is in fact a reflection of a larger problem in our country. The fact that he drew enough votes to make the electoral college relevant tells us how broad his appeal was. That is the problem and, unfortunately, I have no idea how to change the hearts and minds of those who supported, and continue to support, him.
3
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but even if the Russia spent as much as $150,000 in ads that seems like a nearly irrelevant sum to impact the election. It's disappointing the article does not offer comparisons, such as how much some major corporations spend on Facebook ads or some benchmarks on the effectiveness of Facebook ads. I seem to recall reading that GM spends millions on social media.
If some social media folks in Russia managed to parlay a $150,000 ad spend to convince meaningful blocs of voters to support Trump instead of Clinton they should immediately defect to America where they can make millions leveraging their extraordinary expertise working for the consumer products companies of their choosing.
If some social media folks in Russia managed to parlay a $150,000 ad spend to convince meaningful blocs of voters to support Trump instead of Clinton they should immediately defect to America where they can make millions leveraging their extraordinary expertise working for the consumer products companies of their choosing.
6
The impact might not be as negligible as it may seem at first glance. The sum only reflects the potential "paid reach" of Facebook users, who may have then easily liked/shared the content with many others, resulting in significantly larger "organic reach." This is the beauty of social media marketing—once you create content that is likely to go viral, you do not need to spend tons of money on promoting it. The promotion is, eventually, done by anyone who likes your content and is willing to pass it on. So we might be closer to knowing the true effect of the $150,000 if Facebook actually disclosed the total of users reached by these adds—which, at present, they seem rather reluctant to do.
16
Facebook is a dirt cheap advertising medium; it's hard to spend much more than $150,000 there on a short ad run.
12
That is the very power of Facebook. A cheap ad on Facebook is worth a million interesting articles in the New York Review of Books. Tragic, but true.
17
Big Brother is right on time. He is not only peeking into your bedroom and toilet he is shouting into your face playing on your fears, and hidden, and not so hidden desires, and not with your permission or even awareness.
I am wondering if "targeted" advertising it is not a breach of free speech or at least free seeing/hearing what I want to see and hear. I think Face Book should ask me if I want to see and ad BEFORE it shows up on my page!
I am wondering if "targeted" advertising it is not a breach of free speech or at least free seeing/hearing what I want to see and hear. I think Face Book should ask me if I want to see and ad BEFORE it shows up on my page!
7
Maybe by having a Facebook account and accepting the company's terms and conditions, you unknowingly agreed to seeing/hearing those ads?
3
If you are on Facebook, you are their product.
5
Let me make sure I understand.... FaceBook, that squelches virtually any dissent from the globalist, progressive, liberal party line and we're supposed to believe they fully researched adds purchased, on line, and determined they were Russian???
This is where the charges of 'Fake News' are born....
This is where the charges of 'Fake News' are born....
5
Charges of fake news are born when extreme right-wing partisans are reminded that empirical facts contradict their worldview.
16
So we know that outside influence is like a rain storm into our country. That is a significant issue but the real danger are the idiots out there, maybe you and me, who believe unknown sources of the real fake news, the real alternative facts my favorite Palin imitator would say.
If we are dumb enough to believe everything we see on the internet, then we deserve what we got.
If we are dumb enough to believe everything we see on the internet, then we deserve what we got.
13
well done Russia. Keep it up.
1
Has America become a Managed Democracy?
It seems that whoever owns the data, rules the world.
FB Users Beware:
During the 2016 presidential campaign, unknowing FB users who participated in "fun" FB quizzes & surveys had personal info stolen for targeted propaganda. This data mining was done by Cambridge Analytica, owned by the Mercer Family, who are also patrons of Banon and Breitbart. Flynn and Banon held key roles at Cambridge Analytica.
How does Mark Zuckerberg allow this user data theft? What, if anything, is he doing about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytical
Stolen User Data Helped Elect Trump:
https://narativ.org/2017/09/05/psychological-warfare-cambridge-analytica...
It seems that whoever owns the data, rules the world.
FB Users Beware:
During the 2016 presidential campaign, unknowing FB users who participated in "fun" FB quizzes & surveys had personal info stolen for targeted propaganda. This data mining was done by Cambridge Analytica, owned by the Mercer Family, who are also patrons of Banon and Breitbart. Flynn and Banon held key roles at Cambridge Analytica.
How does Mark Zuckerberg allow this user data theft? What, if anything, is he doing about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytical
Stolen User Data Helped Elect Trump:
https://narativ.org/2017/09/05/psychological-warfare-cambridge-analytica...
15
$100K? Really? One Hundred Thousand US Dollars? For state sponsored propaganda? Five first class tickets from Moscow to New York? On sale.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors had a budget, for 2016, of $752M for propaganda. One more time. $752,000,000.
Hillary lost because of $100K? Her peeps spent $1B.
Please.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors had a budget, for 2016, of $752M for propaganda. One more time. $752,000,000.
Hillary lost because of $100K? Her peeps spent $1B.
Please.
8
Yes, jsheb, we're saying Mom had cancer in every organ of her body but it was that one malignant cell that killed her. That's exactly what we're saying. There couldn't possibly be a combination of factors at work; that would require one's mind to maintain more than one thought at the same time.
1
Apparently , $100k is a sum that can buy a large amount of internet ads. Can't be compared with a newspaper or tv ad .
4
It's not what you spend, it's how and where you spend it.
13
Mark Zuckerberg...Know Your Customer!
1
Just how stupid do you have to be to be influenced by any advertising, particularly political ads?
The real problem with the American political system is that it assumes a certain level of knowledge and sophistication on the part of voters. The Founding Fathers made no such assumption, which is why, originally, neither the President nor senators were directly elected. The Founding Fathers were right: Americans cannot be trusted with electing a president. What a remarkable demonstration of that we saw in the last election.
The real problem with the American political system is that it assumes a certain level of knowledge and sophistication on the part of voters. The Founding Fathers made no such assumption, which is why, originally, neither the President nor senators were directly elected. The Founding Fathers were right: Americans cannot be trusted with electing a president. What a remarkable demonstration of that we saw in the last election.
108
"Just how stupid do you have to be to be influenced by any advertising, particularly political ads?"
Look around. Isn't it obvious "just average" will do?
Look around. Isn't it obvious "just average" will do?
2
It doesn't come in the form of ads. That's the problem. It comes in the form of "news". And if one is not a critical thinker, it's easy to be convinced. Or at least confused.
6
The system the founding fathers set up is exactly what gave us trump. The popular vote usually coincides with the electoral vote, but twice in this young century, the eletoral college has overridden the popular vote. What was that about the wisdom of the founding fathers again?
4
For all of the promise of the internet when it was being created, all the hopes for improved understanding through better communication, instead it is looking like a social experiment gone horribly wrong.
5
And this is no doubt the tip of the iceberg. We need an independent investigation into Russian interference in US elections, and we need it now!
11
The only person who interfered in the election was Hillary, rigging the election from Bernie.
3
Nonsense. HRC beat Bernie fair and square, by more votes than by which BHO beat HRC in 2008. Did the DNC prefer that Clinton won? Sure, but that doesn't mean the vote was rigged. HRC got more votes, and she did it mainly in primaries that can't be rigged. Also, HRC is a Democrat, Bernie isn't. Not surprising that the Democratic party would prefer that the Democrat won. Next time get more votes and quit your bellyaching.
3
Facebook. The Pandora's Box of our times.
11
I saw this happening and warned people about it on Facebook last year.
Donald Trump got elected because of a coordinated campaign of lies about Hillary Clinton, in which Americans participated.
Donald Trump got elected because of a coordinated campaign of lies about Hillary Clinton, in which Americans participated.
34
And I am so sorry that so few people listened. Cassandra was famously punished for predicted future events: note that women who see ahead are considered witches deserving punishment, but guys who come out with good outcomes are celebrated.
4
what lies about hillary it goes back to at least Cathy Obrien if not further
Someone is spending money to create bogus news stories to influence the gullible and sway elections.
Does it really matter if that skullduggery originates in the U.S. or in Russia?
In the age of Citizen's United's unlimited spending there will continue to be dirty tricks. The cure is not in chasing after the Russians -- it's in trying to educate the reader.
Does it really matter if that skullduggery originates in the U.S. or in Russia?
In the age of Citizen's United's unlimited spending there will continue to be dirty tricks. The cure is not in chasing after the Russians -- it's in trying to educate the reader.
11
Well, yes, it matters. An unfriendly country influencing the tone of our elections is different from the awful but lawful Citizens United outcome.
5
Or both.
No wonder Donald was so intrigued with "fake news" and keeps bringing attention to it. You'd think it would be the opposite.
He's made a tragedy of this country in any way possible.
He's made a tragedy of this country in any way possible.
11
In other words, like Brietbart is the platform of the Alt Right, Facebook was the platform of the Kremlin, maybe still is, who knows.
4
But Facebook had nothing to do with the election results. Isn't that right, Mr. Zuckerberg?
9
These ads amount to nothing, and are being belatedly brought up in order to counter the charge that the exclusive focus in the media has been on Trump's alleged collusion with the Russians and not on other aspects of Russian hacking if that is really the interest at all. The timing of these stories represents yet another attempt to manipulate public opinion. Another example is the letter written by Obama to Trump offering him all kinds of helpful tips and hints as if Obama was a well-wisher which was then followed the next day by Obama's pious platitudes about how Trump had acted against "basic decency" by rescinding DACA. When will this fake news stop?
3
I can't understand why our Members of Congress are not taking this seriously... we now have confirmed data that the software in many of our election machines were hacked; U.S. intelligence Agencies confirmed Russia interfered with our presidential elections in favor of Trump; and we now know Facebook was used as a tool to promulgate fake stories in favor of Trump. Collectively, these actions are very dangerous for the future of our Democracy... especially if they are orchestrated by an adversarial country. I bet there would be a different sense of urgency if the perpetrators trying to sabotage our election process were from a Muslim country. There is so much rampant hypocrisy its sickening!!
5
Whether it is doing so actively or passively, since it is aware of the illegal activities it is facilitating which ultimately hope to effect our elections, Facebook--Mark Zuckerberg--is in effect conspiring with a foreign power that is seeking to destroy our country.
5
Russia is not seeking to destroy our country. They got what they wanted, a crony capitalist oligarchy led by a useful idiot. Kinda like Russia is now. It's all about the oil. It is not clear that it would have been much better with HRC there. That's why she lost. But it would have been a little bit harder for Putin.
2
While I agree that Facebook running Russian election ads is troubling, I am more concerned about the unlimited, undisclosed money in our elections pursuant to the CItizens' United decision by the US Supreme Court.
We trust that campaigns comply with election laws. In the case of Trump and his minions we have to wonder exactly what problem any of them would have in taking unlimited amounts of money in the campaign from Trumps's Russian buddies.
Citizens' United was a problem from the start. Anyone could see that issue when the case was decided by the Republican branch of the Supreme Court. This case must be overturned through legislation or a constitutional amendment.
Otherwise, Facebook is just the tip of the iceberg.
We trust that campaigns comply with election laws. In the case of Trump and his minions we have to wonder exactly what problem any of them would have in taking unlimited amounts of money in the campaign from Trumps's Russian buddies.
Citizens' United was a problem from the start. Anyone could see that issue when the case was decided by the Republican branch of the Supreme Court. This case must be overturned through legislation or a constitutional amendment.
Otherwise, Facebook is just the tip of the iceberg.
27
Based on the information in the article and from what we all have observed, Facebook has become too big to manage and that's dangerous to a free people.
No business should be allowed to become so large and out of control that it realistically can pose a danger to our society.
The single goal of FB is to sell ad space so they can separate us from our hard earned dollars. In the process they have allowed their service to be a venue by which children and women have been bullied and threatened, racists voices have risen to prominence, and hundreds of Russian government trolls have disseminated fake news that to one degree or other effected the presidential campaign.
All this in exchange for sharing baby pictures with granma or prom pictures with the cheerleader squad is simply not worth the horrible and un-policed damage FB has unleashed on society.
That they believe they can simply report that they have now done further investigation on the meddling of our presidential campaign and seem to feel that they are tantamount to a utility fundamental to our existence is just plain bizarre and other-worldly. In my humble opinion, FB is a threat to national security as long as it remains unmanageable or unwilling to protect us from espionage.
No business should be allowed to become so large and out of control that it realistically can pose a danger to our society.
The single goal of FB is to sell ad space so they can separate us from our hard earned dollars. In the process they have allowed their service to be a venue by which children and women have been bullied and threatened, racists voices have risen to prominence, and hundreds of Russian government trolls have disseminated fake news that to one degree or other effected the presidential campaign.
All this in exchange for sharing baby pictures with granma or prom pictures with the cheerleader squad is simply not worth the horrible and un-policed damage FB has unleashed on society.
That they believe they can simply report that they have now done further investigation on the meddling of our presidential campaign and seem to feel that they are tantamount to a utility fundamental to our existence is just plain bizarre and other-worldly. In my humble opinion, FB is a threat to national security as long as it remains unmanageable or unwilling to protect us from espionage.
298
But FB is free! Which reminds of the old adage - The only place to get free cheese is from a mouse trap. Then there is the statement by Robert Heinlein in a 50's sci-fi tome - TINFL [[There Is No Free Lunch].
2
You are blaming the medium for the message. Our problem isn't Facebook; it's people willing to believe misinformation and propaganda. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was "yellow journalism." But even then, the problem wasn't newspapers, it was integrity of the oligarchs who controlled the presses. AND the gullibility of the many people who believed the war-mongering and emotional belligerence of the media of the time.
America has always had people willing to spread falsehoods for their own greed and power. Our democracy depends on enough people able and willing to detect the lies, expose them and -- most important-- denounce them.
America has always had people willing to spread falsehoods for their own greed and power. Our democracy depends on enough people able and willing to detect the lies, expose them and -- most important-- denounce them.
2
@JaneQ - Yes a thousand times. Facebook is in my opinion, one of the largest contributors to the dumbing down of anyone who participates. We have email, snail mail, phones in all our hands capable of communicating with anyone, anytime, anywhere - is that not enough? IMO it's colossal waste of time. And the friending/unfriending thing... posting mundane selfies while getting drunk, etc., it's nuts. There is entirely too much information out there about all of us, that criminals can and do use to our detriment. Why would you deliberately give them a map and the keys to your door? As someone else once said of Facebook "I like my laundry detergent but I don't want to be friends with it".
Of course Facebook and Google should be regulated. Unlike AT&T at the beginning of the last century, or broadcast news midway through it, internet media is truly global. Every country can try to enact its own regulations, but that enforces blunt categories, and becomes censorship. Instead, global fora run by international diplomacy, along the lines that chemical and other industries follow, can establish transparent systems of vetting. News sources can be detected by a site's quantity of original content that's reproduced elsewhere. Algorithms can detect content flows, since a few dozen sentences generate unique identity. Periodic reviews of news sources using pre-determined rules, judge sites in recorded proceedings posted online. The news site's owner may defend. If a news site produced content that the Pope supports Trump, for example, it's penalized. Reputation value is attached to the site, which search engines and users can use. Metastasizing sources that appear when primary channels are debunked still produce identifiable content, and patterns of sudden reproduction of these obscure sites trigger bad rep tags. Please contact me claiborne97 AT zf4r34ie.com for more.
2
The Russians took advantage of a disinformation system that had been expanding for at least 20 years. Fox News, right wing radio, Breitbart, etc. are only the visible tip of the iceberg that includes right wing hate sites, newsletters, and other publications committed to messaging that is weighted to political messages that question the very existence of facts and turning half the country against the other half. Putin's agents supplied the one missing piece of any propaganda campaign, promoting the strong leader that would answer the fear, anger and blame that the ongoing propaganda created.
9
FB made $100K routinely selling targeting services and ad links to a trolling service working for a hostile foreign government. FB offered up this instance to officials to demonstrate its integrity/patriotism. In what other ways might FB be using its very powerful and unique capabilities, largely unchecked, that it ought to divulge?
3
That Facebook - arguably the most pervasive political medium in the United States - is a target for deception is hardly surprising.
When any NY Times editorial dares to question Putin's actions and is met with a barrage of vigorously pro-Putin apologists, I am compelled to question their origin.
A diversity of opinion is expected, but I find it a little too strange that KGB-Putin who has behind him a suspicious body count of opponents would garner such fierce loyalty from those claiming to be Americans.
When any NY Times editorial dares to question Putin's actions and is met with a barrage of vigorously pro-Putin apologists, I am compelled to question their origin.
A diversity of opinion is expected, but I find it a little too strange that KGB-Putin who has behind him a suspicious body count of opponents would garner such fierce loyalty from those claiming to be Americans.
7
Yesterday it was Kaspersky. Today it is this Facebook ruse or better yet, plot. Our internet while maintaining freedom of speech and the press has to come up with more protection not only for the consumer but also for the health of our government. We can not have a Big Brother paradigm. But neither can we risk Kafkaesque-type institutions.
On the brighter side, if there is one, the plot does indeed thicken concerning a possible Trump-campaign and Putin connection. And right now it seems that with the chaos both in this administration and the GOP Congress, Mr. Mueller is our only hope in righting this nation. This on-going stress and angst between an intrusive hostile nation and an inept POTUS needs to stop soon.
On the brighter side, if there is one, the plot does indeed thicken concerning a possible Trump-campaign and Putin connection. And right now it seems that with the chaos both in this administration and the GOP Congress, Mr. Mueller is our only hope in righting this nation. This on-going stress and angst between an intrusive hostile nation and an inept POTUS needs to stop soon.
6
The Most Recommended comment has it wrong, when it says, "Cybersecurity is a national security issue. We need an administration that takes this matter seriously, and one in whom the people of this country have trust...."
Yes, cybersecurity is a national security issue, but the problem is not that the Trump Administration does not take this seriously but that the American people do not. Everyone wants security and privacy, but no one wants to give up his or her internet connected gadgets.
Most of America's infrastructure is now internet connected and, thus, vulnerable to sabotage from any of myriad sources. Whether it's voting, flight control, or the electric grid, American's insatiable, self-destructive desire for gadgetry makes us incredibly vulnerable. And for those who think driverless cars and drones will be immune, I would just note the F.D.A. has put out notices that even cardiac pacemakers are subject to hacking.
Today the House unanimously passed a bill allowing 100,000 driverless cars on the road while exempting them from the usual safety regulations, at the same time cutting the states out of most of their regulatory authority. Unanimity, Republicans and Democrats, Trumpistas and Feel The Berners alike. That's not Trump's doing; that's the result of Congress feeling that is what their constituents want.
How many readers here are willing to cut many of their internet chords to provide more security? Let your representatives know.
Yes, cybersecurity is a national security issue, but the problem is not that the Trump Administration does not take this seriously but that the American people do not. Everyone wants security and privacy, but no one wants to give up his or her internet connected gadgets.
Most of America's infrastructure is now internet connected and, thus, vulnerable to sabotage from any of myriad sources. Whether it's voting, flight control, or the electric grid, American's insatiable, self-destructive desire for gadgetry makes us incredibly vulnerable. And for those who think driverless cars and drones will be immune, I would just note the F.D.A. has put out notices that even cardiac pacemakers are subject to hacking.
Today the House unanimously passed a bill allowing 100,000 driverless cars on the road while exempting them from the usual safety regulations, at the same time cutting the states out of most of their regulatory authority. Unanimity, Republicans and Democrats, Trumpistas and Feel The Berners alike. That's not Trump's doing; that's the result of Congress feeling that is what their constituents want.
How many readers here are willing to cut many of their internet chords to provide more security? Let your representatives know.
1
What I've found interesting is that we've not held Facebook accountable for its role in the 2016 election hack.
Why is that? Because Silicon Valley is mostly pro-Democrat? That Tech companies are mostly in Democratic cities or states? That the employees mostly support liberal causes? (Some generalizations, but broadly accurate)
So, we hold the banks accountable for money laundering to have KYC (Know Your Customer) policies in place. Banks not in compliance are fined heavily and subject to regulatory discipline (rightly).
But, what about Facebook? And Tech companies? Should they not know their customers? Colluding with a foreign entity is against US laws, and so why isn't there some regulation holding Tech companies responsible?
Facebook played a big role in the spread of fake news. With zero responsibility or even a Mea Culpa. We have a foreign power now controlling the outcome of American politics, through social media and Facebook, Twitter, Google and their likes aren't responsible?
Why?
We have geeks creating products that allow them to become billionaires without any social or civic responsibility.
Why not let banks do money laundering too?
I want to hear liberal politicians speak up against Tech sector to make sure they understand their roles and responsibilities. Before Zuckerberg runs for President...
Why is that? Because Silicon Valley is mostly pro-Democrat? That Tech companies are mostly in Democratic cities or states? That the employees mostly support liberal causes? (Some generalizations, but broadly accurate)
So, we hold the banks accountable for money laundering to have KYC (Know Your Customer) policies in place. Banks not in compliance are fined heavily and subject to regulatory discipline (rightly).
But, what about Facebook? And Tech companies? Should they not know their customers? Colluding with a foreign entity is against US laws, and so why isn't there some regulation holding Tech companies responsible?
Facebook played a big role in the spread of fake news. With zero responsibility or even a Mea Culpa. We have a foreign power now controlling the outcome of American politics, through social media and Facebook, Twitter, Google and their likes aren't responsible?
Why?
We have geeks creating products that allow them to become billionaires without any social or civic responsibility.
Why not let banks do money laundering too?
I want to hear liberal politicians speak up against Tech sector to make sure they understand their roles and responsibilities. Before Zuckerberg runs for President...
6
Dear Patrician,
Agreed! My enduring hope for tech responsibility is that Twitter will not allow a certain sitting president to, effectively, drunk tweet. Now that should be something we could all get behind. ;)
Thanks so much for your kind words to me the other day. I wish I could have replied earlier. As always, warmest regards.
Agreed! My enduring hope for tech responsibility is that Twitter will not allow a certain sitting president to, effectively, drunk tweet. Now that should be something we could all get behind. ;)
Thanks so much for your kind words to me the other day. I wish I could have replied earlier. As always, warmest regards.
1
Dear NM,
You don't need to thank me for my words. I enjoy your thoughtful contributions :)
Of Trump's tweeting, I think the thing I find most unnerving is that he's doing so sober and not under the influence of any substance or drugs... (I wish one could use the 'freak-out' emoji in Times comments!)
Warm Regards,
You don't need to thank me for my words. I enjoy your thoughtful contributions :)
Of Trump's tweeting, I think the thing I find most unnerving is that he's doing so sober and not under the influence of any substance or drugs... (I wish one could use the 'freak-out' emoji in Times comments!)
Warm Regards,
3
Is this article saying that Facebook itself has committed election fraud? By allowing foreigners to buy advertising to influence the election on their platform, for over a year? I've bought ads on Facebook as well as Google & LinkedIn - it's all automated. It's pretty easy to run a campaign on any of these services, you can get a lot of bang for your buck and target very specific demographics... that's what these ad platforms are designed to do.
What's to stop this from happening the next election? Facebook really needs to be penalized and some safeguards need to put in place for ALL ad platforms on the web. I suspect Facebook doesn't want to reveal the data it collects (they collect all data always, it's not actually unavailable) because that information would open a can of worms. This is the problem with automation, and also why we need tech literate lawmakers and law enforcers. So much is going on online.
What's to stop this from happening the next election? Facebook really needs to be penalized and some safeguards need to put in place for ALL ad platforms on the web. I suspect Facebook doesn't want to reveal the data it collects (they collect all data always, it's not actually unavailable) because that information would open a can of worms. This is the problem with automation, and also why we need tech literate lawmakers and law enforcers. So much is going on online.
4
But of course the whole idea of advertising in politics is repugnant. Votes and policies should be the result of debate and reading. They should not be pushed in the market place like laundry soap. The French system, which prohibits political ads on radio and television, is far more civilized than our sound-bite democracy.
7
oh, that's convenient for facebook...they didn't know this then? i'm glad zuckerberg got $100K more dollars, he really needs it.
2
It always seemed to me relatively easy to deceive and manipulate peoples' thinking via social media where fact checking is not common and when offered, it is often ignored as itself being fake or at least biased. Obviously the Russians feel the same way.
1
No evidence? If Trump Jr.'s meeting wasn't straight-forward evidence of attempted collusion, than nothing is. The e-mail correspondence which we now can read ourselves speaks for itself.
128
Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer who came over on a mission about adopting Russian kids. Jr. wasn't even happy about the meeting. Then the lawyer was leaving and she got an extended illegal stay from Loretta Lynch. That meeting was a set up by the Obama administration. Nothing ever came of it. No evidence of collusion.
Suuuuuuuuuuuure.
I believe EVERYTHING Donald Trump Jr and his Russian pals tell me about that meeting.
I believe EVERYTHING Donald Trump Jr and his Russian pals tell me about that meeting.
3
Are foreign entities allowed to buy political ads? if not, Facebook should be fined. It's their job to make sure only certain groups who have been verified are allowed to purchase politcal ads, especially when they are during a presidential election. Never regretted leaving Facebook years ago, I seriously don't know what good it does (no, reconnecting with your high school friends is not one of them).
18
Political ads during an election are required to show who purchased the ad. Perhaps this was avoided by the avoidance of a particular candidate’s name. I remember extremely divisive posts that referred to what I considered hot-button issues during the campaign and these posts inferred a particular choice of candidate as a remedy. I stopped using Yahoo as my home page as it too had a lot of annoying “opinion” pieces framed as news stories. I looked often for the origin of these opinion pieces and was sent to “writers” of sketch political blogs.
1
Very sorry for being stupid, but what do you mean by "bought ads"? Do you mean they bought advertising space in Facebook and used the ads to make false claims?
20
MH: "Do you mean they bought advertising space in Facebook and used the ads to make false claims?"
According to Stamos, the issue is "ads purchased on Facebook".
However, "false claims" are not at issue. Stamos says that the ads were purchased through "inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies" and that "We don’t allow inauthentic accounts on Facebook".
Stamos later uses the phrase "fake accounts". Why he switches terminology is a question the Times should ask about. Are "inauthentic accounts" different from "fake accounts"? Or is Stamos waffling about how harsh he wants to sound?
Source: Follow the link in this phrase from the article: "according to a post on Facebook by Alex Stamos".
According to Stamos, the issue is "ads purchased on Facebook".
However, "false claims" are not at issue. Stamos says that the ads were purchased through "inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies" and that "We don’t allow inauthentic accounts on Facebook".
Stamos later uses the phrase "fake accounts". Why he switches terminology is a question the Times should ask about. Are "inauthentic accounts" different from "fake accounts"? Or is Stamos waffling about how harsh he wants to sound?
Source: Follow the link in this phrase from the article: "according to a post on Facebook by Alex Stamos".
It's not complex. Read the lead sentence. They bought "...ads on hot-button issues..."
Nothing about false claims, Mike. They were just supporting their favorite candidate.
Nothing about false claims, Mike. They were just supporting their favorite candidate.
I think that is what it means
What is the difference between a fake Facebook account and a "real" Facebook account?
11
Fake accounts are used to trick people; to meet the goals of some person or group of people.
A real account would have your real name, real photos, and real information with the intention to use Facebook the way it was meant to: to socialize with friends and family.
A real account would have your real name, real photos, and real information with the intention to use Facebook the way it was meant to: to socialize with friends and family.
2
I thought everything about FB was fake. Fake "friends", fake news, fake photos, fake ads, and the idea of it being "social" is the most fake of all.
5
The Russians can have mine, I never use it. Not that I'm that real to begin with.
3
Clinton spend over a billion dollars to get herself elected and we are supposed to believe that a mere $100 grand derailed her Presidential aspirations? That is as far a reach as I have heard, again.
11
No. The article doesn't say that. If there's nothing wrong with what they did, why weren't Russia and Facebook open about it? Oh yeah, that final paragraph. "Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections." I take it you'd have no problem if Bashar Hafez al-Assad or Kim Jong-un bought a few million dollars worth of Facebook or tv ads; they wouldn't determine the outcome.
2
Well that's the beauty of a smear campaign, isn't it? Very cost effective, and all the positive campaigning in the world can't undo it.
4
You mean, FB users really look at the ads?
11
This is the funniest article yet.
So, now the Russians influenced the election by buying Ads on Facebook?
Everyone knows the people who use Facebook all voted for Hillary.
Keep these stories coming. They are very entertaining.
So, now the Russians influenced the election by buying Ads on Facebook?
Everyone knows the people who use Facebook all voted for Hillary.
Keep these stories coming. They are very entertaining.
6
Everybody on Facebook voted for Hillary? The majority of my FB friends voted for Trump if they voted at all. I don't know many people who care to discuss politics at all, face to face. But on Facebook, EVERYBODY has an opinion, and they believe EVERYTHING they read. This makes Facebook fertile ground to sow attack ads and fake news, and sway an election. Hillary might have spent a billion dollars, but not enough of that billion was spent on FB counter-advertising.
3
6 people recommend that? Every Trump voter I know uses FB obsessively
2
M m m.... Most of the political posts I received from my Facebook friends were forwards from anti-Hillary news sites or posts claiming to reveal the truth about horrible things about liberals. I'm fairly certain that none of them voted for Hillary, and they are some of the most active users of Facebook I know. I considered closing my account rather than deal with the posts showing up in my news feed.
2
Could someone do the work to document, in one place, all the hideous results of Facebook...
From the bullying, the tracking, the false info, racial, economic profiling in advertising, providing hate group platforms, preying pedophiles, parents not caring about their childrens right to privacy, now this and who knows what else...
At some point "social" platforms have to be held to some stricter standards.
From the bullying, the tracking, the false info, racial, economic profiling in advertising, providing hate group platforms, preying pedophiles, parents not caring about their childrens right to privacy, now this and who knows what else...
At some point "social" platforms have to be held to some stricter standards.
27
That will happen only when we hold ourselves to stricter standards.
This is a natural result of the information age and the tacit contracts consumers agree to for free services. And it is predictable. What's really concerning is how the media (including the NYT), in its quest for operating dollars, has broken into camps based on political leanings. Liberal and right leaning news organizations stoke the emotional trigger fires of their readers. Our fractured media is complicit in the success of Russian trolls etc.
4
One big difference is the NYTs, WAPO, etc...have other things besides Trump stuff to read. Like the arts, food, human interest stories from a broad spectrum, entertainment, etc...so there is more exposure, variety...
Whereas Fox News is 100% Republican sycophancy, 24/7. For 8 years it was the Obama hate machine. He could have cured cancer, and Fox would have spun it he was putting Rx reps, doctors and nurses and hospital staff out of work.
Whereas Fox News is 100% Republican sycophancy, 24/7. For 8 years it was the Obama hate machine. He could have cured cancer, and Fox would have spun it he was putting Rx reps, doctors and nurses and hospital staff out of work.
5
All one has to do is watch and listen to the non-stop political ads on TV during the election season to get a distorted view of the facts and misrepresentation. You do not need Russia to manipulate the voters.
14
Based on our own history of illegally influencing elections in foreign countries since the end of WWII I'd be willing to bet we're still doing it via the CIA.....as usual. I mean, we have a robust propaganda program in the State Department and in the Armed Forces, so why all the fuss regarding Russia?
8
"Robust" implies a level of competence one would be hard pressed to attribute to this administration.
How does Mark Zuckerberg dodge responsibility for this one?
6
It's perfectly legal for Mark Zuckerberg to "collude" with Russia because he's a private businessman, not the President of the United States. When the President does it, it's treason.
1
Sooo ... we're to believe that the billionaire real estate mogul, who self-financed his campaign to the tune of $100 million from his own pocket and criss-crossed the country, barnstorming several rallies per day, and used earned media and his own social media presence to reach voters ...
entered into a shadowy deal with the Russkies over a paltry $100K in POPUP ADS on Fakebook?
Yah, right. No.
entered into a shadowy deal with the Russkies over a paltry $100K in POPUP ADS on Fakebook?
Yah, right. No.
11
Clickbait is very cheap and very effective. You get real a bang for your buck. If politicians were smart, they'd spend a lot less money advertising via Clickbait on social media then junking up our airwaves
If you really believe he self-financed his campaign, there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale cheap! Mostly he used donated money to pay his own companies and hotels, including for the use of his own airplane.
If people are relying in getting there news from just Facebook they aren't too bright to begin with. Facebook is just a platform. do some research people. It only reward few clicks of a mouse.
8
that's nice, wishful thinking. the vast majority of americans are uninformed at best, but really just stupid in reality.
This should come as no surprise to anyone with critical thinking skills. I’ll never forget my mom, a devout Hillary hater way before Trump came around, showing me all of the messages posted and shared on her Facebook feed that only echoed and amplified her views.
She showed me an InfoWars video, who she didn’t bother researching, shared by a friend that listed out all of the evidence pointing toward some sort of mental illness in Hillary. Then the candidate collapsed a week later on September 11th, cementing those ideas in her mind.
Yes, this is a foreign power actively campaigning for an American candidate, and yes, that’s unacceptable. But whether it’s a Russian troll or a 400 pound troll in their mother’s basement, our feeds are unhealthy bubbles that usually consist only of people similar to us.
Social media is only a piece of the puzzle as to why we’re so polarized and divided, but it’s certainly a big one that anyone, politician or foreign power, can use to their advantage.
She showed me an InfoWars video, who she didn’t bother researching, shared by a friend that listed out all of the evidence pointing toward some sort of mental illness in Hillary. Then the candidate collapsed a week later on September 11th, cementing those ideas in her mind.
Yes, this is a foreign power actively campaigning for an American candidate, and yes, that’s unacceptable. But whether it’s a Russian troll or a 400 pound troll in their mother’s basement, our feeds are unhealthy bubbles that usually consist only of people similar to us.
Social media is only a piece of the puzzle as to why we’re so polarized and divided, but it’s certainly a big one that anyone, politician or foreign power, can use to their advantage.
8
Alex Stamos, Facebook Chief Security Officer: "Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights."
Stamos should have had a competent editor review that statement, because it is vague, ambiguous, and incoherent.
The word "appeared" suggests that Stamos never even looked at the "ads" or that he is incompetent to evaluate them.
The phrase "to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages" is ambiguous. What "messages" are being "amplified"? The messages of the advertisers or the messages of someone else?
The examples at the end are not on an "ideological spectrum". They are topics about which people with various positions on an "ideological spectrum" may have opinions. Stamos is committing a category error, so his statement is incoherent.
2017-09-06 22:47:04 UTC
Stamos should have had a competent editor review that statement, because it is vague, ambiguous, and incoherent.
The word "appeared" suggests that Stamos never even looked at the "ads" or that he is incompetent to evaluate them.
The phrase "to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages" is ambiguous. What "messages" are being "amplified"? The messages of the advertisers or the messages of someone else?
The examples at the end are not on an "ideological spectrum". They are topics about which people with various positions on an "ideological spectrum" may have opinions. Stamos is committing a category error, so his statement is incoherent.
2017-09-06 22:47:04 UTC
3
Russian agents, Fox News and anyone else is free to spew whatever lies they want with few restrictions. That's the price we pay for freedom of speech. It's up to each American voter to discern truth from nonsense.
7
"It's up to each American voter to discern truth from nonsense."
The President of the United States has repeatedly called The New York Times, CNN and other responsible news organizations "fake news", so it's really up to each American voter to denounce him and call for his prompt removal.
The President of the United States has repeatedly called The New York Times, CNN and other responsible news organizations "fake news", so it's really up to each American voter to denounce him and call for his prompt removal.
2
@Brad L
Thank you for the link.
It probes again what a shameful lot this ship of fools really is.
I hope mr Bob Mueller is litening:
Dear Mr. Bob Mueller
This is Jonah
Please hurry-up
Thank you
Thank you for the link.
It probes again what a shameful lot this ship of fools really is.
I hope mr Bob Mueller is litening:
Dear Mr. Bob Mueller
This is Jonah
Please hurry-up
Thank you
6
It all feels more and more like Watergate with ostensibly trivial fragments of news finding their way, one by one, into the media. Having just read a long, excellent article about Trump's billionaire buddy, Carl Ichan, I'm increasingly ready to believe that Trump is enmeshed in the worst kinds of corruption, at home and abroad (Russia).
11
Because it's better to see our democracy hijacked than to simply verify Facebook users identities.
2
Well that is fine because it increased shareholder value.
That's all we really care about in this country right?
That's all we really care about in this country right?
5
You wait. The Mercer data firm is going to wind up in this and Russian money will be traced to help finance this. Now to see just how much the GOP knew about it
8
Google and Youtube (which Google owns) are also rife with suspicious results. If you do a Google search for certain legitimate news organizations, fraudulent sites are right up there amongst everything else.
Tech companies need to do a better job when it comes to detecting fraudsters on their websites. Maybe because of their complacency, we've got a grifter in the White House.
Tech companies need to do a better job when it comes to detecting fraudsters on their websites. Maybe because of their complacency, we've got a grifter in the White House.
9
Just STOP saying there has been no evidence of collusion between trump amd russia, because that is pure speculation. Try instead saying "No such evidence has yet been LEAKED from Mueller's investigation".
2
These fake news stories are intensely scary. But the thing that scares me the most is that people believe them. Social media is just that, it is not a source of filtered and reviewed facts. What is the matter with people that swallow, hook line and sinker every word of this fake news and then want to blame Facebook, or Twitter rather than their own gullibility. There is free speech in the US. People are free to make pronouncements that are intentionally wrong. In some cases, after the fact, it may be possible to convict some sources of a crime. But until then how about the populace just exercising a bit of common sense and exploit that vast source of information, some of it true, the Internet to check facts before gobbling them up from unreliable sources and paid ads on Facebook.
5
I can see this being a big issue, but do they know it was, without a doubt from Russia? I mean, we could have a group here in the US spoofing their location to Russia. It's not hard.
2
Fake Russian accounts buy Facebook ads. Fake US NGOs promote democracy and human rights in Russia. What's the difference? It's all subterfuge and politics and shouldn't be an outrage. Nation states at work, people.
14
Wait wait, don't tell me. TX is a town near the border of Belarus, right?
1
There is zero surprise in this story, except that it came out at all. Everyone on Facebook encounters these fake accounts daily.
4
The significance is that the human equivalent of a fake account is now the so-called President of the United States.
2
"To date, while news reports have uncovered many meetings and contacts between Trump associates and Russians, there has been no evidence proving collusion in the hacking or other Russian activities [that has been reported in the press]."
I am betting that there will be many nasty bombshells that come out after Mueller is finished with his investigation.
I am betting that there will be many nasty bombshells that come out after Mueller is finished with his investigation.
11
I dumped FB way before this. I'm glad I did. We apparently have enough of an Idiocracy (ya have to see the movie) that Trump got elected. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message" and the Russians (and Trump and Fox News) really knew how to manipulate the message, didn't they?
6
It's very clear Kushner gave information to Russia so they would run ads and in exchange for running ads trump would remove all sanctions on Russia If he became president. They had no money! The campaign was a total joke so they would gather some information and then russia would buy the ads!
4
This is becoming a game of who ISN'T involved in this Matryoshka effect. We might all be involved and not even know it.
*sigh* The problem with social media in this day & age.
*sigh* The problem with social media in this day & age.
No troll spends 100K of their own money. This is a big operation, even if it's small potatoes on the grand scheme of things. Whose money is this? Russian government, some oligarch friend of Trump's?
In addition, 100K on the Internet can be highly leveraging if it resonates well with key narratives (lies or truths) of the campaign (anti-immigration, Clinton emails, little Marco, lying Ted, etc.). It doesn't take much to reinforce pre-existing narratives and memes. But these messages need to have culturally grounded coherence and pasty faced Russians sitting at their computers in Moscow simply couldn't get this done by themselves.
I think Jared has some 'splaining to do!
In addition, 100K on the Internet can be highly leveraging if it resonates well with key narratives (lies or truths) of the campaign (anti-immigration, Clinton emails, little Marco, lying Ted, etc.). It doesn't take much to reinforce pre-existing narratives and memes. But these messages need to have culturally grounded coherence and pasty faced Russians sitting at their computers in Moscow simply couldn't get this done by themselves.
I think Jared has some 'splaining to do!
31
Why are we finding out all of this after the election?
Before the election, the press and Comey spent more time fretting about Hillary's really boring emails than reporting on the evidence that a hostile foreign power was trying to rig the election. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding that.
Before the election, the press and Comey spent more time fretting about Hillary's really boring emails than reporting on the evidence that a hostile foreign power was trying to rig the election. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding that.
45
Mark Zuckerberg's net worth is 71.5 billion. He is, according to Forbes, the fifth richest person in the world.
It seems as though there is an inverse correlation between Zuckerberg's wealth and his oversight of his company.
Inexcusable, reprehensible.
Facebook or Fakebook?
It seems as though there is an inverse correlation between Zuckerberg's wealth and his oversight of his company.
Inexcusable, reprehensible.
Facebook or Fakebook?
20
"Free" is never really free of course. Facebook has devolved into just another digital scourge on the planet riddled with ads, fake news, showboating, and rumor mongering. I suppose we have to add political propoganda to the list now as well. I think I'll suggest to my family we create a password gated Wordpress blog where family members and friends can post. Would be a much better experience at actual less total cost when you think of the pain of suffering that is now Facebook.
4
Think about how much money it costs American college students to get a degree in computer science. There's no way we can compete internationally when our universities are costing students a quarter of a million dollars for a bachelor's degree.
2
As a student in Boulder at CU in the turnulent 60's, I happened to meet a similarly aged Russian boy who confessed to me that he had been sent to the US to promote political activism through protest. This article about the Russians using Facebook for divisiveness is the same story retold 50 years later. What has taken us so long to see the unseen influences?
I am a proponent of free speech and as it was promoted in Berkeley in the 60's. But today we are also allowing political and divisive protest to frighten college administrators away from campus free speech. It is a shame to see Berkeley at the center of this development.
How can we turn divisive political activism into productive public discourse? If we can, and if our politicians will be able to truly hear what the American people want and hope for, we will yet be the world's first successful democracy. Our country's forefathers fought hard to create and foster a new idea that built the world's greatest nation and I hope my family for generations to come will be able to say they too live in the greatest nation and democracy.
I am a proponent of free speech and as it was promoted in Berkeley in the 60's. But today we are also allowing political and divisive protest to frighten college administrators away from campus free speech. It is a shame to see Berkeley at the center of this development.
How can we turn divisive political activism into productive public discourse? If we can, and if our politicians will be able to truly hear what the American people want and hope for, we will yet be the world's first successful democracy. Our country's forefathers fought hard to create and foster a new idea that built the world's greatest nation and I hope my family for generations to come will be able to say they too live in the greatest nation and democracy.
13
"I happened to meet a similarly aged Russian boy who confessed to me that he had been sent to the US to promote political activism through protest."
Obviously, the boys working undercover for the FBI to infiltrate those groups were too professional to identify themselves to you.
Obviously, the boys working undercover for the FBI to infiltrate those groups were too professional to identify themselves to you.
1
If the Russians did this on Facebook, then where else did they do effectively the same thing? $100,000 is a drop in the bucket, but put enough buckets together and then it becomes something much bigger.
The "fourth estate" needs to start turning over more rocks, where social media is concerned. Eventually they will find the gold nugget leading to Trump's impeachment.
The "fourth estate" needs to start turning over more rocks, where social media is concerned. Eventually they will find the gold nugget leading to Trump's impeachment.
74
How about starting with Breitbart and Fox ?News????
2
You're beating a dead horse
This isn't about politics or Trump anymore. Our country is being targeted by Russia for the sole purpose of creating chaos and disrupting our democracy. The question is what are we going to do about it.
Facebook has a duty to protect our democracy by preventing another country from using their platform to spread misinformation. Citizens United gave corporations the same voice as the average citizen. With rights comes responsibility.
A few months ago I got locked out of my Facebook account because someone from a Russian computer tried to use my login. While it was great that Facebook protected my account by preventing the login and forced me to verify my information before I logged in does that mean that's all they are obligated to do. I think not.
Once Facebook moved into the realm of allowing information to be spread they became obligated to ensure that their platform wasn't a tool for deliberate misinformation. But we also bare responsibility for doing our part in ensuring that we don't take what we read on Facebook at face value. We need to be better citizens and start fact checking before believing everything we see posted.
Facebook has a duty to protect our democracy by preventing another country from using their platform to spread misinformation. Citizens United gave corporations the same voice as the average citizen. With rights comes responsibility.
A few months ago I got locked out of my Facebook account because someone from a Russian computer tried to use my login. While it was great that Facebook protected my account by preventing the login and forced me to verify my information before I logged in does that mean that's all they are obligated to do. I think not.
Once Facebook moved into the realm of allowing information to be spread they became obligated to ensure that their platform wasn't a tool for deliberate misinformation. But we also bare responsibility for doing our part in ensuring that we don't take what we read on Facebook at face value. We need to be better citizens and start fact checking before believing everything we see posted.
105
"This isn't about politics or Trump anymore."
I'm sure that's the GOP's official position, but what about the rest of us — you know, patriotic Americans?
I'm sure that's the GOP's official position, but what about the rest of us — you know, patriotic Americans?
1
That's why we have Snopes.
Russia, by themselves, couldn't just guess the precise voter precincts and areas that these ads would need to play in, for their desired effect. They had to get that info from US Actors, now the question is, who or what group, in the US, had the analytical ability to supply that info to the Russians?
171
KN: "Russia, by themselves, couldn't just guess the precise voter precincts and areas that these ads would need to play in ..."
Neither Facebook nor the Times uses the word "precinct". Facebook uses the phrase "geographically targeted", which could mean a "target" as large as several states.
KN: "They had to get that info from US Actors, ..."
The Times has published maps showing which states are red and which are blue, so your paranoid insinuations are groundless:
Red States, Blue States: 2016 Is Looking a Lot Like 2012 (and 2008)
Toni Monkovic
SEPT. 8, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/upshot/red-states-blue-states-does-th...
2017-09-07 03:50:22 UTC
Neither Facebook nor the Times uses the word "precinct". Facebook uses the phrase "geographically targeted", which could mean a "target" as large as several states.
KN: "They had to get that info from US Actors, ..."
The Times has published maps showing which states are red and which are blue, so your paranoid insinuations are groundless:
Red States, Blue States: 2016 Is Looking a Lot Like 2012 (and 2008)
Toni Monkovic
SEPT. 8, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/upshot/red-states-blue-states-does-th...
2017-09-07 03:50:22 UTC
1
Trump did it. Wel, Kushner did it. That's what that mystery server in Trump Tower was for.
1
Deny all you want, even FB denied this for months, it is coming out more every day, US Confederates along with Russian Intel services, interfered with our election. You infer I'm making "paranoid insinuations'' ? Hold that thought, we'll have this all out in the open soon enough.
This probably won't make any difference to Trump's die hard supporters, or the GOP. They will only see cyber security as an issue when their identity and money is stolen or pictures of them naked end up on the internet. I can only imagine the spin Fox news will put on this to make it seem like just another "fake news" story put out there by the evil liberal conspirators who are trying to take down their president. To be fair, I don't think Trump had anything to do with this. The Russians have been trying to undermine the American political system since the days of Lenin. But rarely in such blatant ways so easily discovered and traced back to them.
18
Too bad that Churchill was not our President in WWII, as well he could have been. A first rate intellect in a second rate political mind, as opposed to FDR, who was the reverse.
2
"To be fair, I don't think Trump had anything to do with this."
Are you joking? Trump does this every day on Twitter under his real name!
Are you joking? Trump does this every day on Twitter under his real name!
2
If Churchill had been president instead of FDR, he could have kept the Soviet Union from invading America. Think how different our lives would be.
1
REALLY???!!!! I'M SHOCKED!!! I'M SHOCKED AND DISMAYED!!! Anyone who followed that farce of a presidential campaign and the investigations related to Russian meddling in the election and support of Trump assumed that this happened. What took Facebook so long to fess-up?
69
Democratic liberals run it?
Last week Putin said that WW3 will be won be the country with strong computer science and AI research. He is confident on his message because he knows he already won the first battle: USA is ruled by the president of their choice.
152
$100,000 amounts to peanuts in the 2016 presidential election where over $1 Billion was spent! No one, in particular Hillary Clinton, can now claim she lost the election because of these nuisance ads. Voters are better influenced by the actual comments and opinions of fellow voters all over the country...and, more significantly the actual campaign organized by the candidates. Considering that Trump put up a massive ground game against Hillary's low energy no show "got it in the bag" attitude, dismisses any possibility that the outcome would have been different had it not been for those petty ads.
9
I disagree with your idea that the outcome could not have been different (although I'm not saying that it would have been - that is what the investigation will hopefully reveal). Trump only won the Electoral College by 80,000 votes in three swing states - a concentrated effort in those states could make the difference. In addition to the advertising, there was also a great amount of people commenting online who were not in the U.S. Comments combined with advertising can sway public opinion (Also, if advertising were ineffective, brands would stop doing it). What will be interesting to me is whether or not the Facebook ads and non-U.S. online comments were targeting people in the states that made up the 80,000 votes that swung the Electoral College to Trump.
12
$1,000 in well placed fb ads will get shared by so many that it could easily sway an election. Credulous people spreading misinformation is a powerful force.
7
Obama was the first campaign to exploit the internet quite well in 2008, but that campaign took the high road and didn't try dirty web tricks. As a developer I know the GOP was trying to copy some of Obama's formula as early as 2011. They wanted to catch up. Well.... they did it, but with some help.
Here's the thing, Rangerluna, it may have worked in favor of the GOP this time. But if it's THAT easy to exploit, who's going to grantee it'll work for the GOP again? This one is worth the investigation.
Here's the thing, Rangerluna, it may have worked in favor of the GOP this time. But if it's THAT easy to exploit, who's going to grantee it'll work for the GOP again? This one is worth the investigation.
1
So what did Facebook know, and when did they know it?
35
Follow the money!
And just another reason I am not and have never been a Phasedlook (facebook) user.
And just another reason I am not and have never been a Phasedlook (facebook) user.
15
It's not just fake Facebook accounts. There are thousands of fake Russian accounts in most U.S newspapers comment sections.
I always wonder why nothing is done to stop that. The cost of destabilizing America is getting cheaper and cheaper. With less than a million dollar, a foreign country can influence U.S elections. For Republicans in Congress not to take it seriously because it profits them this time is short sighted.
I always wonder why nothing is done to stop that. The cost of destabilizing America is getting cheaper and cheaper. With less than a million dollar, a foreign country can influence U.S elections. For Republicans in Congress not to take it seriously because it profits them this time is short sighted.
213
Voters not as stupid as you think
It's difficult for most humans to admit they have been suckered. They hide their losses from scams or gambling from family and even law enforcement because they are embarrassed.
I believe a good number of Trump voters realize they were profoundly naive last November 8th. But they would rather die than admit it publicly.
Hopefully they can at least privately realize Vladimir Putin got them really quite easily and we can try to repair this damage together.
This is all so terrifically sad.
I believe a good number of Trump voters realize they were profoundly naive last November 8th. But they would rather die than admit it publicly.
Hopefully they can at least privately realize Vladimir Putin got them really quite easily and we can try to repair this damage together.
This is all so terrifically sad.
90
Yea, he got the votes so easy.. what a silly thing to say.
Trump is tight with the Russians, that's why he bombed their ally and kicked out so many diplomats..
Trump is tight with the Russians, that's why he bombed their ally and kicked out so many diplomats..
Trump still better than having the Clinton family in our White House
The Most Recommended comment says, "Cybersecurity is a national security issue. We need an administration that takes this matter seriously, and one in whom the people of this country have trust. It is the only way to maintain the integrity of our system, our politics and our elections."
To the contrary, the problem is not that the Trump Administration does not take this seriously but that the American people do not. Everyone wants security and privacy, but no one wants to give up his or her internet connected gadgets.
Most of America's infrastructure is now internet connected and, thus, vulnerable to sabotage from any of myriad sources. Whether it's voting, flight control, or the electric grid, American's insatiable, self-destructive desire for gadgetry makes us incredibly vulnerable. And for those who think driverless cars and drones will be immune, I would just note the F.D.A. has put out notices that even cardiac pacemakers are subject to hacking.
Today the House unanimously passed a bill allowing 100,000 driverless cars on the road while exempting them from the usual safety regulations, at the same time cutting the states out of most of their regulatory authority. Unanimity, Republicans and Democrats, Trumpistas and Feel The Berners alike. That's not Trump's doing; that's the result of Congress feeling that is what their constituents want.
How many readers here are willing to cut many of their internet chords to provide more security? Let your representatives know.
To the contrary, the problem is not that the Trump Administration does not take this seriously but that the American people do not. Everyone wants security and privacy, but no one wants to give up his or her internet connected gadgets.
Most of America's infrastructure is now internet connected and, thus, vulnerable to sabotage from any of myriad sources. Whether it's voting, flight control, or the electric grid, American's insatiable, self-destructive desire for gadgetry makes us incredibly vulnerable. And for those who think driverless cars and drones will be immune, I would just note the F.D.A. has put out notices that even cardiac pacemakers are subject to hacking.
Today the House unanimously passed a bill allowing 100,000 driverless cars on the road while exempting them from the usual safety regulations, at the same time cutting the states out of most of their regulatory authority. Unanimity, Republicans and Democrats, Trumpistas and Feel The Berners alike. That's not Trump's doing; that's the result of Congress feeling that is what their constituents want.
How many readers here are willing to cut many of their internet chords to provide more security? Let your representatives know.
7
Don't go blaming FB for this.
In case you didn't get my memo, liberal democracy is under covert and overt attack by both the Chinese and the Russians.
The goal is to destroy Western democracy and replace it with Mafia style authoritarian regimes.
Nothing is more threatening to a dictatorship than a free press and a free people. You can't have legitimacy unless one destroys the other.
Our job, as democratic Americans, is to both reform our house and look after the nacient and established free people. We have been the arsenal of democracy, the wall against the coming storm and the light and the hope of the world.
Stand. We take the fight to our enemies.
In case you didn't get my memo, liberal democracy is under covert and overt attack by both the Chinese and the Russians.
The goal is to destroy Western democracy and replace it with Mafia style authoritarian regimes.
Nothing is more threatening to a dictatorship than a free press and a free people. You can't have legitimacy unless one destroys the other.
Our job, as democratic Americans, is to both reform our house and look after the nacient and established free people. We have been the arsenal of democracy, the wall against the coming storm and the light and the hope of the world.
Stand. We take the fight to our enemies.
9
Facebook must be required to shut down such ads and accounts immediately when they receive such requests. Their too late response may have cost Clinton the election due to Russian fake ads.
366
Whose to know where monies buried within SuperPACs originates? I'm not sure policing election advertisements is best left to the likes of Facebook et al. New campaign finance reform legislation is needed to reduce election and government corruption fostered by unlimited financial donations.
1
Do you really want FB to censor users' political speech? If so, then which side? Rather than shut down such accounts, why not tag them as Russian propaganda, for all users to see?
21
That include all the fake Disqus.com accounts that can be traced to the DNC?
You keep forgetting, HRC out-spent her foe, at least two-to-one. And still lost the heartland. Period.
So much for "the power of advertising" -- hello, "Citizens United!"
You keep forgetting, HRC out-spent her foe, at least two-to-one. And still lost the heartland. Period.
So much for "the power of advertising" -- hello, "Citizens United!"
I wouldn't be surprised if many of those fake accounts are still active, and still trolling on FB. Some 'posters' apparently delight in stirring the pot, to see how many people they can rile up.
14
MJZ, correct. Just a few weeks ago a television reporter interviewed three Russian trolls working out of Moscow and vicinity. All three were young and each of them recounted with delight how they post on the boards of the NYT, WAPO, WSJ among other publications and post intentionally inflammatory pro-Trump comments then laugh at the responses. They were reluctant to admit that they were making these posts at the behest of the Russian government, but there was the impression that they were at least doing so to curry favor if not payment.
The internet and AI is how the future will be cultivated, the russians know that and they are way ahead of our government, intelligence agencies and our population at large. Not to take this threat seriously will cause us ruin.
The internet and AI is how the future will be cultivated, the russians know that and they are way ahead of our government, intelligence agencies and our population at large. Not to take this threat seriously will cause us ruin.
3
Now we know where the fruits of Kushner's voter data harvesting effort were harvested. All Mueller needs to do now is connect the ever-shrinking distance between the dots. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2017/05/26/jared-kushner-in-h...
90
Excellent link, thanks!
Doesn't mean the money started in Russia.
And I guess I think it is worse if it came from Russia.
However compare that to the money we spent just to hate each other.
And I guess I think it is worse if it came from Russia.
However compare that to the money we spent just to hate each other.
1
What about the thousands of fake stories popping up on my Google feed?
It's not just the Russians. It's the Citizen's United mob abetted by a Right Wing SCOTUS ascendant over the last 40 years.
We haven't been a democracy in a long time. That the veil is slipping is through overconfidence on the part of the bodies responsible. They couldn't care less that the scam is obvious.
Citz. Utd., Russia, gerrymandering, GOP smear industry, superPACs, Fox News, ALEC, NRA, FBI interference, voter restrictions: the absence of any single one of these would have saved the national embarrassment of a Trump presidency.
Why wait for the other shoe to drop? I emigrated 6 months ago.
I'll come back when the shooting starts.
It's not just the Russians. It's the Citizen's United mob abetted by a Right Wing SCOTUS ascendant over the last 40 years.
We haven't been a democracy in a long time. That the veil is slipping is through overconfidence on the part of the bodies responsible. They couldn't care less that the scam is obvious.
Citz. Utd., Russia, gerrymandering, GOP smear industry, superPACs, Fox News, ALEC, NRA, FBI interference, voter restrictions: the absence of any single one of these would have saved the national embarrassment of a Trump presidency.
Why wait for the other shoe to drop? I emigrated 6 months ago.
I'll come back when the shooting starts.
29
Political ads need to be regulated! They used to be and it needs to happen again. Equal rime. They also need to be verifiable in whatever they claim.
8
Given how long it has taken for Russia's well planned hacking and spread of disinformation to be revealed, there is little confidence that we have the political will to prevent this (and worse) from happening again in 2018 or 2020. They are a year out ahead of us and already on their next act. No doubt with some inside assistance again. I'm sure cyber security is of no interest to our present regime.
13
The level of content and geographical precision of the Russian ads on Facebook strongly suggests that there was collaboration with Americans, likely members of the Trump campaign. Once unmasked, those operatives should be charged with treason.
728
They'd probably get pardoned.
Meanwhile Robert Mercer, he lay low.
2
Intentional collaboration, not necessarily. Precision is based on Big Data analysis, and anyone with very powerful computing resources (of which Russia has plenty) could quickly do that. In addition, engineers who left Facebook or Google for consulting analysis work could be hired without telling them their work was specifically to influence an election. Hacking into the DNC data was no doubt very helpful.
I'm more and more seriously considering ending my presence in Facebook. As an entity, it seems to be doing more damage than good.
I know I survived okay before I signed up, surely I can survive okay now.
I know I survived okay before I signed up, surely I can survive okay now.
161
It is quite pleasant to leave Facebook.
1
I never joined and I am doing just fine.
Twitter may be no better. Anonymous aspects of social media coupled with the simplistic mindset of most users promoted this possibility.
America and Americans need depth of conversation beyond Facebook likes and 140 character comments.
America and Americans need depth of conversation beyond Facebook likes and 140 character comments.
At what point can we do a do-over? Surely our Constitution is flexible enough to permit rejection of the outcome of the election at this point.
13
"The ads violated Facebook’s policies," -- So how did the ads get run if they violated Facebook's policies? This is just one area where the difference between the old days of print journalism and this "modern" day of computers running everything nearly autonomously shows up.
It seems Facebook is casually hiding behind "nobody at Facebook even looks at these ads before they start running on our network" like it's no big deal. There is more and more erosion of responsibility. "We didn't know, 'the computer' [which we programmed] just did it magically all by itself."
Next step is to dodge responsibility and claim "the computer did it" when far more explicit violations occur. These fictitious legal entities and their executives must start being held 100% account for what their "computers" do while nobody is watching. Only then will the fictitious legal entities actually care about exerting the extra effort to stop their computers from being able to do it.
It seems Facebook is casually hiding behind "nobody at Facebook even looks at these ads before they start running on our network" like it's no big deal. There is more and more erosion of responsibility. "We didn't know, 'the computer' [which we programmed] just did it magically all by itself."
Next step is to dodge responsibility and claim "the computer did it" when far more explicit violations occur. These fictitious legal entities and their executives must start being held 100% account for what their "computers" do while nobody is watching. Only then will the fictitious legal entities actually care about exerting the extra effort to stop their computers from being able to do it.
69
Facebook shuts down approximately 1 million user pages per day. It's a never-ending battle.
4
How do they allow such 'fake accounts' to be created in the first place? If I post more than a couple pictures to a 'celebrity account' I immediately get a 'captcha'...so why can't FB implement this technology during the account creation process?
Me thinks it impacts their bottom line.
Me thinks it impacts their bottom line.
Will facebook return the money and report revised earnings or is that too much to ask for?
4
This just shows the depth and sophistication of the psychological attack on our electoral process. From buying ads on fb, to the twitter bots and fake news articles coming out of Macedonia and other places... The Russians may not have hacked the machines themselves, but their ability to shape the hearts and minds of the American electorate (and as such, their votes) and throw wrenches into districts' voter rolls to delay or prevent people from voting is a sign of the changing face of warfare. Strong word, I know, but let's call it for what it was. An pre-meditated and well-coordinated multiple-front attack on this country in order to hurt us and the unity of the West.
Putin got EXACTLY what he wanted... A united States in chaos, an unsure NATO and a weakened European Union.
How do we all recover and learn from this, I wonder?
Putin got EXACTLY what he wanted... A united States in chaos, an unsure NATO and a weakened European Union.
How do we all recover and learn from this, I wonder?
177
We certainly ARE NOT on target to recover and learn from all of this with the current White House occupants, NOR our COMPLICIT Republican Congress. This is something that should have been tackled with the ferocity of a "Manhattan Project" once it was discovered, which, sadly it was not.
We need NEW LEADERSHIP in the White House and NEW LEADERSHIP IN CONGRESS!
We need NEW LEADERSHIP in the White House and NEW LEADERSHIP IN CONGRESS!
Don't be so sure that the Russians didn't hack the voting machines. Perhaps not actually altering votes...yet...but causing technical issues via hacking that resulted in downtime at voting booths in strategic locations skewed toward a democratic majority that kept voters from exercising their votes
"To date, while news reports have uncovered many meetings and contacts between Trump associates and Russians, there has been no evidence proving collusion in the hacking or other Russian activities"
And there won't be. This Russian collusion "news" is part of the resistance to Trump no matter the truth.
And there won't be. This Russian collusion "news" is part of the resistance to Trump no matter the truth.
5
Yes. Our national security is paramount. This was a democracy. Restore it congress!
5
So many of us spent countless hours battling these Russian trolls. Like the Trump people, they had extreme divisive character, and generally loaded with distortions and misinformation. Still they made others waver in their interest in politics in general. When everything was portrayed as dirty and politicians as out to get rich, who wouldn't be distressed? People need to hear positive messages from people who are selflessly helping - that's why they are in govt.
5
And just yesterday, Putin dismissively quipped that Trump was not his bride. It matters not how displeased Putin is about our sanctions on Russia or whatnot. It matters critically, though, that Russia used multiple means of manipulating our election, including social media - and, as Comey warned, will strike again.
10
This is how industries come to be regulated.
13
I don't know what bothers me more. The ad buys or that so many people were, shall we be kind and say, too naive to see through the lies.
30
So about a year after Facebook's policies are broken Facebook gets around to doing something about it.
They really really couldn't care less if a foreign power interferes in your election .
Bet they banked the cash a lot faster.
They really really couldn't care less if a foreign power interferes in your election .
Bet they banked the cash a lot faster.
19
I find it hard to believe that Facebook has only just now realised this. I am wondering if this is an in-house review or if it is in response to an external request. At least when you see a political ad on TV, they have to disclose who is paying for it. No transparency on Facebook!
54
The media has been all over facebook since May, 2016, gf. Amazon was complicit in the treasonous attack on OUR governments at all levels.
Who is surprised? They are owned lock, stock and barrel by the same Wall Street Robber Barons who head up the International Mafia that is trying to take over governments around the world so they can privatize and run it. They already have Ireland.
People need to wake up and see what is happening before it's too late.
Who is surprised? They are owned lock, stock and barrel by the same Wall Street Robber Barons who head up the International Mafia that is trying to take over governments around the world so they can privatize and run it. They already have Ireland.
People need to wake up and see what is happening before it's too late.
Facebook took in $27bn in ad spend during 2016.
I'm not justifying or equivocating, just contextualizing.
I'm not justifying or equivocating, just contextualizing.
1
Russia has long been masterful with propaganda; never underestimate how effectively that nation can use it on us, too.
6
The Internet Research Agency clearly maintains a strong presence in these very comments sections. No, I'm not going to mention any screen names.
Is there a well left to be poisoned? It seems the campaign to make Americans doubt everything we see and hear is nearly complete.
Is there a well left to be poisoned? It seems the campaign to make Americans doubt everything we see and hear is nearly complete.
13
Not surprising. Facebook needs to do a better job of preventing false advertising as well as preventing underage minors from posting. Daily I get friendship requests, mostly from third world countries. I'm a senior citizen. And sometimes they are in languages I can't read. Facebook needs a sea change in how they do business. They've done more damage than they realize.
6
The next shoe to drop will be the revelation that Russia hacked into and placed political ads in Twitter accounts, which may explain why the president uses that social media exclusively, to the delight of his millions of followers, including the ones in Russia.
14
Maybe. But I think it more likely that the Donald only thinks, and therefore only communicates, in 140 characters or less at a time.
1
Unfortunately we have gotten to the point where we must depend on these private companies like Facebook (and Reddit, etc) to do the right thing and police their networks for actions by hostile foreign powers and hate groups in order to maintain our democratic society. If the history of the news media is any clue they will fail miserably in the pursuit of profits.
3
Well, if my wife Googles lighting fixtures on her laptop, I will get lighting fixture ads on my smartphone Facebook page.
looks like our ISP sells her searches and Facebook betrays her by telling me what she's up to.
looks like our ISP sells her searches and Facebook betrays her by telling me what she's up to.
3
More likely that Google sells the tracking cookie data and Facebook ties it to you with your relationship with your wife.
2
You can change the google settings in your computer to stop that.
1
Trump voters wanted to believe the Facebook posts because it made it easier for them to "hold their noses," and vote for the lies, the greed, the misogyny, the prejudice, and the religious bigotry.
17
"It's too late to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted."
There are two things here, what Mueller is looking into and what FB is doing; maximise ad revenue.
The Trump Admin. is too weak and ignorant to do anything about the latter but tries to discredit the former.
FB has grown too big and powerful to be cut down to size - and that's definitely not a good thing.
There are two things here, what Mueller is looking into and what FB is doing; maximise ad revenue.
The Trump Admin. is too weak and ignorant to do anything about the latter but tries to discredit the former.
FB has grown too big and powerful to be cut down to size - and that's definitely not a good thing.
6
Just enough people (40,000 in three states) had to be swayed by these ads/trolls to change our Presidential election. Many made note of this blizzard of ads/many trolls just before the election, but we had faith that there were not enough fools to believe this propaganda. Everyone was wrong. As pointed out in Kurt Anderson new book, "Fantasyland" our fools have been slowly cultivated for decades. It was just a matter of time before OUR fools would effect everyone.
27
It's well past time to quit Facebook forever. It can't control its content, and has devolved into a sad place where people learn a LOT of fake news and believe it. The average user can't distinguish what's real and what's not, and neither can Facebook. BOYCOTT! Facebook needs to go away like its predecessor MySpace and others, sooner rather than later.
10
No one particularly cares for this notion, and I admit that it is fraught with deficiency, but until we can either establish some slightly fettered access policy with respect to the nation's internet infrastructure, or shut key pieces of it down in the time leading up to elections, we are in for a very rough ride my friends.
The pollution of misinformation and un-facts that circulate in advance of our elections, not to mention the infection that exists within the election apparatus itself, will doom "the last best hope of earth".
The pollution of misinformation and un-facts that circulate in advance of our elections, not to mention the infection that exists within the election apparatus itself, will doom "the last best hope of earth".
4
These kind of fake accounts lead readers to believe a false narrative as to what consensus opinion is on a wide range of issues.
Fairly often, I look at social media comments to see what others are thinking. If a large amount of comments and "likes" are fake, it makes it very hard to see what others are truly saying about a particular topic.
Hopefully Facebook develops an algorithm to prevent these kinds of accounts and their associated posts. Without such provisions, everyone should take serious consideration into the validity of social media posts and whether they truly represent popular opinion.
Fairly often, I look at social media comments to see what others are thinking. If a large amount of comments and "likes" are fake, it makes it very hard to see what others are truly saying about a particular topic.
Hopefully Facebook develops an algorithm to prevent these kinds of accounts and their associated posts. Without such provisions, everyone should take serious consideration into the validity of social media posts and whether they truly represent popular opinion.
3
Trolls are the biggest problem with social media, perhaps much of the Internet in general. While privacy and anonymous posting has advantages if the a topic is sensitive and people are afraid to speak up, it sure has a lot of drawbacks too. Remember the old saying, "Consider the source?" Kinda hard to do if you don't know the source or, even worse, if you think you know the source but really don't.
9
Yes, we must be diligent, but think of the millions who aren't. Given the market value of this company, one would think they would put this issue and its resolution as Priority One. But this is capitalism only concerned with quarterly results and stock price/valuation. That's how the execs make those millions!
3
It is now apparent that Last year's election turned on Russian interference, and Comey's October surprise. I feel the election was literally stolen from Hillary Clinton. The thing is, what happens going forward? How do we trust any election result anymore?
As Mueller's investigation turns up more information, I really believe a case could be made for overturning the election results. I certainly am no Constitutional scholar, but what has happened is unprecedented, and the election results should be allowed to be challenged. Further, in essence, FaceBook helped elect Donald Trump by not policing its accounts. That should give anyone pause who uses social media.
As Mueller's investigation turns up more information, I really believe a case could be made for overturning the election results. I certainly am no Constitutional scholar, but what has happened is unprecedented, and the election results should be allowed to be challenged. Further, in essence, FaceBook helped elect Donald Trump by not policing its accounts. That should give anyone pause who uses social media.
110
A case could be made, but there is no Constitutional remedy for a rigged election except to correct the error for the next election. Practically speaking, that's the quickest way, too; a Constitutional amendment, in this political climate, would take a hundred years.
1
Good luck getting the election overturned even If Mueller has video of Trump and Putin outlining their conspiracy in detail.
With a Koch Brothers controlled POTUS, Senate, House, and Supreme Court, the fix is in. At this point, even the illusion of freedom is a fading memory.
With a Koch Brothers controlled POTUS, Senate, House, and Supreme Court, the fix is in. At this point, even the illusion of freedom is a fading memory.
At this point, it's not controversial that Russians meddled in the election, but this doesn't actually prove anything about Trump's collusion. I hate 45 as much as the next liberal arts college student, but I'm concerned about the fact that democrats (and frankly, the New York Times) seem to care more about portraying Trump's victory as being the result of a contingent outside influence than seriously considering that maybe his presidency was made possible by the faults internal to America, and particularly, oversights within the democratic party's approach to the working class.
23
It's irrelevant who won the election. The crime is collusion with a foreign power to influence a federal election which I understand is a crime. Further, understanding what channels foreign powers leverage to influence election will offer insights into combatting them.
8
Peter, an actual liberal arts college student would know that the reason for Trump's 3-million-vote loss "victory" could be "all of the above". I will take the Democratic Party's approach to the working class, which is cordial, over the GOP's, which is actively hostile, any day.
26
Did the Trump voters of Ohio really believe that Trump and the Republicans would be better for the working class than Democrats? There is plenty of blame for Trump to go around. But maybe Trump state apologists should care more about the intellectual and moral rot within their states, instead of blaming Trump on the Democrats.
18
Welcome to Russian-Republistan, where the Grand Old Peasant voters get easily played with puerile propaganda by Grand Old Power.
Trump-Putin 2017.
Trump is a Presidential imposter.
This is what a Kremlin coup d'tat looks like...from Russia with larceny.
The 2016 Presidential election was stolen.
Trump-Putin 2017.
Trump is a Presidential imposter.
This is what a Kremlin coup d'tat looks like...from Russia with larceny.
The 2016 Presidential election was stolen.
337
What many of suspected. However, we have our own elected officials stealing a Supreme Court seat and we've done nothing about it. What are the chances anything will be done about a stolen Presidential election? The same elected officials are in charge. How Mitch McConnell can do what he did, and get away with it, is astounding.
Perhaps Facebook could promote educational messages, like public service announcements throughout all their members pages. A subject like climate change is the first thing that comes to my mind. It might be nice gesture to further educate some of the people that only use social media for their news. This country needs all the help it can get.
26
Most will misconstrue this as some sort of hack or cyber crime when in reality this was just the clever use of advertising and content distribution tactics used every day by the likes of big publishers and companies selling products. It has been proven that 'click bait' headlines win out over real journalism in todays unregulated digital age, why should it shock us that foreign agents employ similar tactics to Breitbart and their ilk. Companies like Facebook created these products, they know what they are capable of doing, but hey..they wear hoodies and are nice people right? What's the harm?
We worship big tech as our modern celebrities with their innovation mantras and nice benefits, but in reality these are not good companies acting in the public interest, they simply seek to control as much of their respective market as possible and take as much data about us as they can. Perhaps we as a society will finally start to open our eyes to the great harm this vast, open, unregulated internet can have on us all when we leave our interests in the hands of money worshiping technocrats, robots and their venture capitalists overlords ever-hungry for the next big payout.
We worship big tech as our modern celebrities with their innovation mantras and nice benefits, but in reality these are not good companies acting in the public interest, they simply seek to control as much of their respective market as possible and take as much data about us as they can. Perhaps we as a society will finally start to open our eyes to the great harm this vast, open, unregulated internet can have on us all when we leave our interests in the hands of money worshiping technocrats, robots and their venture capitalists overlords ever-hungry for the next big payout.
18
I think this comes as no surprise to those paying attention. I'm only surprised the dollar amount was so small, but I don't know the fee structure at Facebook.
Meanwhile, we need to be ever-vigilant. Smart people will question every political message they see, looking for corroboration in traditional sources. Those who think the mainstream media are lying haven't been paying attention.
Meanwhile, we need to be ever-vigilant. Smart people will question every political message they see, looking for corroboration in traditional sources. Those who think the mainstream media are lying haven't been paying attention.
121
That was my thought exactly, especially that the sum seems so small.
8
The son of god removed for 30 pieces of silver; $100K is about right for American democracy.
1
I started doing that during the election. I only read posts from respected known sources. I have a friend who is a Democrat who got caught up in all that fake news. I finally just stopped reading anything he posted unless is was on a personal level.
Facebook is a mess. This is a major problem, but so is their current algo, which pushes highly commented threads to the top of the list, so that all trolls need to do is post something outrageous -- and then watch the counter comments roll in -- successfully keeping the troll threads at the top. This happens thousands of times each day, and appears to make (mostly) pro-Trump remarks the most popular.
304
*sigh*. Facebook is not he problem. Their job is to sell ads, deliver eyeballs and make money for shareholders.
The problem is people believing what they read without critical thought. Fine-fix Facebook so they cannot sell eyeballs to the (fill in the blank with the baddie du jour....Russians; white supremacists; people that eat Brussels sprouts....). Until we can teach some kind of media literacy and critical thinking we are truly doomed.
The problem is people believing what they read without critical thought. Fine-fix Facebook so they cannot sell eyeballs to the (fill in the blank with the baddie du jour....Russians; white supremacists; people that eat Brussels sprouts....). Until we can teach some kind of media literacy and critical thinking we are truly doomed.
4
"Facebook is a mess."
Fact: 40% of Americans refuse to use FB, which makes $$$$$ with your personal data.
It isn't their fault, sir.
Fact: 40% of Americans refuse to use FB, which makes $$$$$ with your personal data.
It isn't their fault, sir.
We also need companies that care just a little bit more than just about how much money they can make.
199
Nope. Facebook's job is to not filter news...their job is to increase shareholder value. More eyeballs, more clicks, more ad revenue. It is up to YOU to assess the veracity of the sources of the news information you take in, and base important decisions on a collection of facts from various sources that you trust. That is not too much to ask for.
Now, if Facebook thinks it can make more money by being more diligent on vetting sources of information it provides, then that is their business decision. But as a company interested in generatin profit, we must ALWAYS be cognizant that SOMEONE makes money form everything they do-else why do it???.
Now, if Facebook thinks it can make more money by being more diligent on vetting sources of information it provides, then that is their business decision. But as a company interested in generatin profit, we must ALWAYS be cognizant that SOMEONE makes money form everything they do-else why do it???.
2
The problem has become that some of these people have so much money they can live (and do often live) in many countries at the same time. So their loyalty to one country weakens greatly and their obeisance to money takes over.
Straight out of last season's Homeland, which eerily approximated many of our own election issues and problems.
I have a strong suspicion that many Replies to my posts came from Russian bots.
I want investigators to pursue the role Jared Kushner played with his digital operations and programs. Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me at all if these ad buys and other Russian interference operations weren't somehow being coordinated by Jared.
Come on, Robert Mueller--hurry up!!!
I have a strong suspicion that many Replies to my posts came from Russian bots.
I want investigators to pursue the role Jared Kushner played with his digital operations and programs. Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me at all if these ad buys and other Russian interference operations weren't somehow being coordinated by Jared.
Come on, Robert Mueller--hurry up!!!
455
Yep. Jared was a C student who's dad had to buy his way into Harvard for $2.5M and suddenly he was the tech boy genius of the trump campaign. No way.
11
Yes Homeland told the story. Yes Jared is involved.
2
@Hychkok: Jared didn't have to be the "boy genius" of the Trump Campaign as there was a Director of Digital Operations under him. All he had to do was direct his director (!) to hit the key areas- of that he was capable for sure. I'm sure if you've worked as long as I have, that you have encountered many "Jareds" in the course of your career. The smart-sounding folks who always land on their feet without getting their hands dirty. Connections, that's all it takes, to be king of the hill and not have to lift a finger yet be "involved" in all things. Just as he is today in the Trump administration.
5
The targeting of particular geographical areas suggests there might have been insider collaboration, perhaps with the Trump campaign itself. Forbes reported on Kushner's "secret data operation." One wonders if the FB campaigns were a part of that operation.
252
I'm thinking the Mercers, Bannon and Cambridge Analytica.
Wow, no Web-link to alleged Forbes "story," How helpful -- not.
And what happened to Obama being so "smart" in 2008, with social media?
Pot, meet kettle.
And what happened to Obama being so "smart" in 2008, with social media?
Pot, meet kettle.
I'd like to know specifically which geographic areas were targeted.
Low price for the chaos that has been bought.
255
Exactly like the barefoot Taliban against the six-hundred-billion-a-year US military.
2
It took them a year to figure this out? Honestly if it wasn't the the only ball in the game, I would have left ages ago. They make changes and don't offer their users proper security and control over their accounts.
58
Leave it even if there isn't an alternative. Who needs it?
10
"Honestly if it wasn't the the only ball in the game, I would have left ages ago."
Maybe it's time to consider getting out of the game?
Maybe it's time to consider getting out of the game?
9
Cybersecurity is a national security issue.
We need an administration that takes this matter seriously, and one in whom the people of this country have trust.
It is the only way to maintain the integrity of our system, our politics and our elections.
We need an administration that takes this matter seriously, and one in whom the people of this country have trust.
It is the only way to maintain the integrity of our system, our politics and our elections.
386
Tracy Mitrano is absolutely correct. However, don't expect THIS administration, which has benefitted so much from its campaign's multiple ties with Russia, to be the administration we need.
And expect more and more revelations. This story is not all wrapped up by any means.
And expect more and more revelations. This story is not all wrapped up by any means.
8
True! Unfortunately this administration won't. They continue to duck and dodge the issue and claim that either it "Never happened" or "Fake News". They know most of Trumps base are low information voters or spoon fed the FOX propaganda.
Its not about parties or ideology, which the low info base gets wrapped up in. Its about the security of our democracy and keeping our elections safe from oligarchs and a authoritarian regime like Putin's Russia, that have and always will despise democracy! If the slow witted wont remove the blinders to the truth, Mr. Mueller's investigation will! It will Don the Con instead of Tricky Dick, and Watergate but with really much stupider people, ie Trump.
Its not about parties or ideology, which the low info base gets wrapped up in. Its about the security of our democracy and keeping our elections safe from oligarchs and a authoritarian regime like Putin's Russia, that have and always will despise democracy! If the slow witted wont remove the blinders to the truth, Mr. Mueller's investigation will! It will Don the Con instead of Tricky Dick, and Watergate but with really much stupider people, ie Trump.
8
This has nothing to do with cyber security, but everything to do with people believing what they read on the internet (or anywhere for that matter) without critical thought. Are we somehow waiting for Facebook to give us the "all clear-we got all the fake news stuff taken care of"? They are telling us a year AFTER all they sold eyeballs to all this junk news. Just remember EVERYTIME you go on Facebook they know a little more about you and turn that knowledge into money for their shareholders.
I say the more fake news the better-it will force people to actually take more than a second to look into an issue before making a snap decision. Follow the money-there is one old saying that will not change with the social media age. People will pay big money to reach your eyeballs.....and influence your decisions. Think carefully people.
I say the more fake news the better-it will force people to actually take more than a second to look into an issue before making a snap decision. Follow the money-there is one old saying that will not change with the social media age. People will pay big money to reach your eyeballs.....and influence your decisions. Think carefully people.
1
Too bad Facebook won't share which of the ads were from fake Russian Facebook accounts. If we saw them, recognized that we shared them, THAT would be a great lesson and an embarrassment (one would hope) that we did the Russian's work for them.