Oh my, if we are not careful we'll be eating borscht soon! This whole thing is a throwback joke. Who is buying this garbage? 90 year old Cold War era Adlai Stevenson supporters? Jimmy Hoffa Demicrats? Fake news.
2
The "single most qualified person ever to run for president" got trounced by a TV game-show host who won in 62% of the states - so democrats need a goat.
No, it was not their fool-proof strategy that lost:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” (Schumer)
Nor was it that they ran a thoroughly inept candidate:
"Michael Moore: I Warned Hillary Campaign About Midwest But They Didn’t Listen" ("think you need to spend more time in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania.”)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-moore-i-warned-hillar…
Nor was it a sense of entitlement that said Clinton didn't need to earn votes:
“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” (Albright)
Nor was it the cynical disingenuousness of the candidate:
"So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position." (leaked - not hacked - HRC email)
No - none of this matters.
Only RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!
So $100,000 spent on Facebook by the evil Russians carried more weight than the $1.2 billion spent by Team Hillary?
It is to laugh.
All we need to know is that after a year, the democrats cannot let go, still need to blame others, and they will not fix the problem. I mean... Donna Brazile? STILL has a position in the DNC? That says it all.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
Don't know where this is coming from -- if you look at Facebook comments, most people use FB to troll, pick fights, call people names and worse, and spout false information they picked up from other idiots posting on FB. Most of them can't even think much less read or want to take the time to read responsible news sources. They're lazy ignoramuses and the riffraff of this country -- doubt they bother to vote.
1
Enough foreplay. Let's see the ads. I want to see the advertising that changed hundreds of thousands of votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa. And if it didn't, it's just a nothingburger.
2
So social media was primed and ready for Comey's big; "Benghazi MUST be re-opened!" announcement; just 9 days ahead of the election.
Why is it that Russia can target and reach more than 126 million Facebook users and neither the Democratic nor Republican Party can reach half that? Could it be that Russia's software engineers and code writers are better trained? Then some monstrosity of a corporation like Apple has the nerve to suggest that it can't find enough talented and smart Americans to work for them that they have to go through FoxConn in China to get workers for $0.85 an hour?
Maybe if some of these tech giants fought for better funding for public education here in the U.S. we wouldn't have aggressors such as Russia eating our lunch in the software wars...
4
Even if I am unhappy with the election of Donald Trump, there is something in this story that hints of a gross weakness.
The Russians posted lies and that affected the election ??? Were the voters so stupid that they actually believed that drivel ?
Trump talks about fake news. In spite of the fact that he is the biggest fake of all, it is the right subject.
Figuring out what is fake and real is maybe half of what life is all about. Who are your real friends ? Who are you, really ? Are you everything that you suggest you are on Facebook ?
Looking for the truth, seeing what is real and what is fake... our ability to do this as individuals and as a nation is what will determine our future.
We should thank the Russians for testing us. And showing us how we need to improve our ability to see the truth.
6
Social media have currently a business model implemented that is in contradiction to ethical concerns or rules; If that business model is not changing or evolving, all discussions around avoiding "fake news" are somehow "fake" or dishonest; quality reporting and quality news can be accomplished when advertisement and paid content is combined (the New York Times is a good example of quality reporting); we heard a lot of arguments like "free speech" shall be granted - yes sure - however with every right comes also a responsibility; the responsibility of social medias should be - at least - to label news feeds (identifying paid content, not paid content, certified and validated content, challenged content, no hate speech, no discrimination of minorities, scoring content, what/who is the source of content); ranking of news content should be allowed by users not by algorithms; users should be identifyable and should be validated, an independent and for non-profit ethic team should specify the rules the social medias have to comply to; used algorithms should be independently validated and scored. Bottom line, social medias have the get regulated - in the interest to protect our democracy!
1
I live in San Francisco and have no reason for the Facebook ads to have targeted me, but even so I saw the most ridiculous stories and ads being shared and circulated that were absolutely WILD. Even people I have known since childhood were sharing outlandish so called "news", almost always about Hillary Clinton. It was absolutely obvious to anyone who uses social media that this was an organized smear campaign - and it worked.
To anyone who doubts that propaganda had no role in deciding votes, I ask you, why does a trillion dollar advertising industry exist? Ads are an extremely effective way to influence people's decisions and has been proven to be a powerful role in shaping thought. If you think you are somehow exempt, you are a robot living in a cave.
3
Brings to mind the guy who showed up at a pizza place with weapons. He was going to save the children that Hillary had kidnapped and was secretly molesting them at the pizza store. How could anyone believe THAT ? Yet there he was.
2
So, just pointing out the obvious issues.
1.) Zuckerberg is quite the liberal - it would seem he was on Hillary's side.. so..?
2.) I think at this point, everyone is firmly in the camp they are in. I am a solid 2nd amendment, pro-economy, anti-tax, social and fiscally-conservative voter. It doesn't matter what fake news I look at, there was Zero chance I would have ever been a Hillary supporter. I don't have any friends that were.
This is no different than New York suddenly rolling over and adopting our firearms proliferation values in the west. It is what it is, we can either coexist, or we are looking at a second civil war. I suggest everyone just "get over it".
Would we have 3% growth and 300,000 new jobs a month under Hillary? No. We would have had more of the same as the anemic growth under the Obama years. Just look at the hockey stick curve of the Dow since the morning after the election, and it's pretty obvious how most of America "really" felt about the previous economic status quo.
1
The best defense in this is a decent education, the willingness to question even things you want to believe in and a modicum of computer research skills. Individuals have an obligation to not bear false witness, I read that somewhere.
3
During the 2016 campaign, I had to block many conservative friends that were constantly posting outrageous Clinton "stories." Russia did interfere with our democracy! They even attempted to hack individual state voting machines and voters information!
If you are not disturbed and alarmed by this you are not paying attention!
2
On Facebook people run away when the don't like what they see.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
When it comes to Propaganda.
Nobody does it better than the KGB.
Its main operative, Putin, is the dictator of Russia.
No small task.
We had a torrential dose of Putin's KGB style Propaganda in 2016.
We will continue to be led around by the KGB because republicans, and lying Trump, refuse to do anything about it. republicans will attempt to discredit any discovery of how the KGB manipulated the 2016 election.
That is "Collusion" !
The Liberty Bell couldn't sound it out in a clearer warning to us. Each ringing toll would tell us.......
Collusion = Treason, Collusion = Treason, ...........
If you care for America, beware. Trump's regime is Putin's choice, not ours. Just as Gorsuch was not our President Obama's choice for the Supreme court.
Never forget,...republicans (Mitch McConnell et al.) robbed that seat from the nomination of Merick Garland by President Obama.
Collusion = Treason
1
There are no amount of posts that could have possibly lowered my already rock bottom opinion of Mrs. Clinton which I have held unwaiveringly for 25 years.
3
The resolution of the problem is not to get group-z to stop saying lies. The resolution is for voters to learn how to discern what is true and false.
2
Wow! So the Kremlin was better at using social media in the campaign than the DNC and the Clinton team. Perhaps the Russians should open up their on shop on K Street.
1
In other news, 126 million people are still waiting for their free iPhones, and the free vacations they won. Or so I gather.
A lot of comments here raising the issue of Russia influencing peoples votes and how stupid these people are and how we should babysit them by
regulation (read censorship) .
Have you considered the possibility that you are right now being influenced by the MSM about the Russia influence ? How else could you believe every story so easily - As soon as you read this story - you guys, without asking any questions or displaying any skepticism make comments like "This proves everything!" , "This is conclusive" , " Now shut this down !" all on the basis of the writing of someone you do not even know. No questions asked, no doubts no thinking. Just jumping to a conclusion.
Please think about the possibility of you being influenced against what you already do not like by the establishment MSM just like you think everyone else was influenced by Russia in the social media
1
Every major company now has not just accounts on Facebook, Twitter and all the rest but also teams of professionals dedicated to planning, developing and disseminating information over those "social" channels, all to further the companies' interests. Major political operations, honorable or nefarious, do the same. How much of the content that gets eyeballed and internalized by individuals is generated by individuals? I think it's more like watching network TV.
The Facebook posts probably didn't change anyone's mind on who they voted. Not many folks were on the fence just wondering who to cass a vote. We unfortunately probably need censorship however it just can't be anyone in the government.
1
$100K? Please. How many hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars were spent on the election. Most of that 100K were probably adverts that showed up on the pages of fake accounts/pages.
1
What people don't get is that political propoganda isn't about changing voters minds - it's about enthusiasm and fear. There are fence sitters who minds change easy. But turn out is the real issue. Weigh down a candidate with negatives, of the kind that matter locally, and lots of their disinterested supporters stay home. People who might stick on a bumper sticker or lawn sign get embarrased. Make a candidate look threatening, with memes about child porn or racial animus, and their opponent's disinterested supporters get energized. Suddenly they want to turn out.
The Russians get this, because it's worked in Europe. It's why the left's carping critique of Clinton mattered, because it muted her supporters enthusiasm. I know it worked, because of the bumper sticker phenomena. Clinton won around here, where in person-to-person talks people were definitely her supporters. But no one had a bumper sticker for her, because so much negative publicity made them embarrassed.
2
I'm one of them. I was a big Hilary supporter. Had signs on my lawn. Contributed hundreds to her campaign.
Then I read just one Russian Facebook post and I flipped to Trump. There are millions of us. Sorry I switched because of sneaky Russians. Hillary should be president.
1
If your description is accurate, "sneaky Russians" aren't the problem here. "There are millions of us" is an absurd and fantasy-based rationalization.
While we're at it, can we also do something about the horribly misleading and non-factual political television ads? In the guise of free speech, these ads don't even come close to presenting the truth.
2
The probability that Russian interference did not change any votes is essentially zero.
1
Likewise the probability that it changed anywhere near enough votes in specific states in a specific way to change the election results.
It sure would be nice if we could blame Facebook or Russia. Then we wouldn't have to do anything about ourselves.
Facebook is literally built out of its users. We make the environment, then advertisers (Russia, in this case) take advantage of what's there. Not the other way around.
Social media could allow us a way to get out of our echo chambers and connect with people across the aisle and across the country. For conversation, it's an amazing tool. But if you only wanna hear what you already think reflected back at you, sure. It'll do that for you if you want. And that includes the content people pay to promote in your particular feed.
Sure, there were foreign ads trying to fool us. But nobody made this country decide they were right.
Source: 5+ years in paid social strategy.
---
P.S.
126k is a blip. $100k Russian spend is being estimated, but it could have been as little as $20k if they sought very broad audiences instead of high frequency. A pretty balanced article, including counterpoints to my estimate: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/russian-facebook-ads-how-many-people-cou...
Let's stick to FB/IG. A thousand unique user impressions costs roughly $4-8 for a reach campaign; $20,000*($8*1000) = 160,000,000. Ta-da. I spread pictures of orange juice further than that every week.
*126M is a blip. Wrong abbreviation, conclusion as intended. 126K would be ... literally nothing.
The Soviets did this for nearly a century. Granted, their reach without the internet was smaller, but why is this such big news, now?
1
Because they finally succeeded.
Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google) emigrated with his family to the US from the Soviet Union when he was 6 years old.
When his father led Sergey and fellow high school math students on a 2 week exchange to Moscow 11 years later, he took his father aside, look him in the eyes and said "Thank you for taking us all out of Russia."
To Sergey Brin I say: "In large part to you, we now have Russia here."
"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." Joseph Stalin
That was then. Today I suspect Joe would say, "When we corrupt America, it will be through manipulating the news and social media."
1
What a terrifying article this is.
As if it weren't enough that one presidential campaign was run by delinquents-as demonstrated by Mueller's actions yesterday- the country was assaulted with propaganda and vicious falsehoods concocted, also, by con artists with the blissful ignorance of the three giant tech communications companies! These star companies helped Trump be elected!
Given the huge ignorance of the American electorate, the impact of the Russian interference cannot be denied neither overlook.
All the information coming from the various investigations on Russian interference probe this was a fraudulent election and should be annulled!
1
We're accepting as fact the numbers provided by the companies?
"The new information goes far beyond what the companies have revealed in the past."
Okay, we're moving in the right direction…
I'd suggest this alternate wording for the first paragraph:
"Facebook, Twitter and Google allege that the impact of Russian agents' interference in the 2016 election was only '126 million users' reached by inflammatory posts on Facebook, 'more than 131,000' messages on Twitter and 'over 1,000' videos uploaded to Google’s YouTube service, according to copies of prepared remarks from the companies that were obtained by The New York Times. The new information, while unverified, still goes far beyond what the companies have revealed in the past."
And I think the companies, if candid, would characterize the scrutiny of their central role in the election interference as "unwelcome jostling," not a "rude awakening."
We are being hit with propaganda all the time. One hundred years ago, over 100,000 Americans were led to their slaughter by their own government in an aggressive (and successful) propaganda campaign to sell World War I. Chemical companies, banks, and insurance companies write legislation that has literally poisoned and bankrupted us and our children. Of course, foreign governments try to influence public opinion in the U.S., just like our own government and multi-national corporations. The problem is we are too stupid and poorly educated to see through any of it. So we'll blame social media and the great new bogey-man Russia, instead of our lack of critical thinking skills.
2
If social media, the information equivalent of the Wild West, can't self regulate themselves and monitor for fake news the government will have to do it for them. There are millions of people who believe fake news or want to believe it, same thing. When it starts to affect the outcome of elections we've got a monumental problem. Other than Fox any self respecting media outlet would not, could not tolerate publishing or posting untruths or they'd go out of business. Why should social media get off free like Fox?
None of this is illegal.
In fact, I often see in the print edition of the NY Times huge, multi-page ads promoting various dubious countries. I'm sure if Putin want to buy 4 pages saying what a great country Russia is, many newspapers and magazines would be happy to take his money.
As for RT, it is completely open and legal. If you don't fancy it, then you can watch French, Israeli, or South African TV on YouTube. The internet is open to everyone worldwide.
2
It's unlikely the Facebook interference from Russia changed any votes. Based on everything reported it more likely just reinforced opinions already solid. That doesn't make it less harmful, possibly more so, and needs to be harshly dealt with. Elections are the baseline for democracy and anyone who tries to thwart that is an enemy of the people. Gerrymandering is bad enough but ultimately people move and change so it's not quite as subversive.
3
Facebook, Google, YouTube and others could take a small step toward making amends by re-sending the each of the postings to the same users with a very clear notice stating that the ads were sponsored by Russians operatives, whom our intelligence agencies say engaged in a disinformation campaign with the intent to influence our election and sow discord.
4
So long as we have people whose sole source of information are the likes of Facebook, Twitter and other social media, problems like this will continue to influence our democracy and mostly negatively. The Russians simply recognized an opportunity to meddle with ease. But it could have just as easily been done by anybody else. Fox News disseminates nonsense all the time and millions of viewers buy into it. The remedy is education and self awareness.
2
126 million impressions of Russian fake news sounds like a lot. According to the pundits, it "swayed the election" in Trump's favor.
So I'm guessing that either the $150,000 ad buy from the Russians far outweighed the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the campaigns, or, more realistically, it was just a small drop in the bucket and had very little (if any) impact whatsoever.
If it's the former, then maybe the campaigns need to ask the Russians to teach them how they targeted exactly the right messages to exactly the right audience, for almost no $$ at all.
3
"War" is evolving, morphing and redesigning itself and we (our government) are not covering the right pass patterns, IMHO. Our most influenceable citizens can be propagandized efficiently through our own national corporations. There ought to be a fix to that which doesn't violate the Constitution. But we better not get too far behind in the fighting of this kind of war. That historically has not gone well.
1
In traditional broadcast and print media, every political ad is supposed to specify the source, e.g. Committee to Elect so-and-so or some PAC. Why can't the same rule apply to social media? Require this of all ad content. If the ad is shared, display all the links in the sharing chain so that we can see exactly who, leading all the way back to the source, is spreading the word. If the post is just text, i.e. no static graphic, apply the same process to the sharing chain.
This would have 2 benefits. First, we can evaluate the veracity of the post by understanding its actual origin. Second, I bet the trolls would be less apt to sling this stuff along if their own identities are exposed.
3
So what, first some of them are not really people or are duplicates. Next only foolish people believe everything on Facebook, a lot of rumor and lies are found there. And freedom allows this to happen, you want to give up your freedom to prevent such as this?
4
Its not about ad revenue. Facebook and Google are surreptitiously mining and selling data. The millions of Chromebooks sold to schools for next to nothing were not given away out of the goodness of their corporate heart.
2
I have a few questions on the looks and likes.
1) 126,000,000 out of how many Billions? What is the percentage of the 126,000,000 out of the total looks and likes?
2) How many users looked at the ads fore than once?
3) How many people were in the United States? Facebook is worldwide...
4) How many people were US citizens and registered to vote? If they were not citizens or registered then they could not vote anyway and their looks and likes become irrelevant...
If the tech giants can answer there questions, then the are way more dangerous then Putin or the Russians... Lets ask for details...
1
What I don't understand is this. We have worldwide websites like facebook, twitter etc. How do we say someone influenced election when anyone can do anything in these sites. Most people like me all along knew facebook is actually fakebook. So I don't know what is the news here.
2
All these statements of how the actual votes were not changed is baloney. The influence is about people's minds when they voted. Did the fake news from Russia and the Facebook targeted ad's get anyone to change their mind of who to vote for? That's the question. With so few votes changing the electoral college the Russian influence could have changed the election absolutely.
2
Undoubtedly, one could find a scattering of people whose voting decisions were changed by Russian ads/fake news and announcements from James Comey, just as one could find a scattering of people who voted illegally, voted twice, etc. But tens of thousands of people in 3 specific states changing their minds in one specific way? - That's the baloney.
The management of these companies have until recently pretty much been in denial that their services were weaponized and had a significant influence in corrupting the last election. The figures we've been given were developed internally...so how accurate are they?
Protecting anonymous free speech that has as its intent the goal of undermining the very political system that makes free speech possible? Go figure.
Elephant in the Room: These tech tools were important as the delivery systems, Russian backed operatives were often the agents using the tools, but who supplied the US side voter data profiles and swing state contacts? Who defined the target demographics and shaped the "trigger" issues and authored the misinformation from within the US that was then supplied to and used by the foreign operatives? What was the role of Mercer/Bannon managed Cambridge Analytica, and others, in managing foreign efforts using, basically, a psyops/propaganda campaign they developed to undermine our democracy. These psyops/propaganda shops, which use foreign operatives, must be violating critical US laws.
3
It seems to me that Putin and Russia have succeeded with their meddling in the 2016 elections beyond what they could have initially imagined. If their original intent was to damage Hillary Clinton's image and sow chaos into an anticipated Clinton administration, they instead have saddled the US, their adversary, with a dysfunctional and ineffective Trump administration. Now the slow drip, drip, drip of damaging revelations about the insiders and others close to the Trump campaign being receptive to if not actually cooperating with Russian centers of influence only further damages the Trump administration, the President's image, and American's confidence in our government. Putin simply lined all his targets up in single file and with one shot has mortally wounded them all while making all Americans collateral damage.
It is way past time for our legislators to do something positive to address this interference in the very heart of our democratic processes. Step up Congress in a bipartisan way and Do Your Job!
3
Then Russians, and many other individuals and countries, know our weaknesses, our tendency toward trust of others and of our systems, and they exploit them. That is largely how 9/11 happened (heavens, we trained one of the pilots), and how we are losing the cyber war.
1
Until this last election, I couldn’t imagine a significant portion of Americans taking political fringe movements seriously. But now it’s clear that fringe movements have worked their way into Americans’ identities and I have no doubt that social media is a major player. We are adrift in identity marketing and politics. To me, this is the only explanation for how such an clearly unqualified candidate was elected president. His base is trapped, surrounded by mass media re-enforcing their choices. It is a perfect set up for social media campaign to intensify American cultural divisions.
3
So, there's no evidence the these ads changed any votes? So does advertising work or not? As I am a business owner, FB constantly barrages me, trying to get me to buy ads.. So if they didn't influence the election, then I guess they don't work?? Which one is it?
While I appreciate the efforts of Sen. Klobuchar and Warner, political ads are not the real problem. The problem is how the false information is spread and reinforced to a crowd that may already be suspicious of certain individuals. A prime example is the story about a pizza restaurant in D.C. that was home to supposed child abuse. By creating a false story, repeating it ("re-tweeting") to give it emphasis and some semblance of truth, many low information voters are easily swayed. If voters aren't easily swayed, why do you think candidates (and their supposedly "independent" PACs) spend so much on "advertising"? It isn't to boost their own candidates, but rather it is the negative campaigning that seems to be the primary goal.
2
Although Hillary would have still lost the 2016 election, the facts of Russian influence are much more ominous than the outcome of a single election. Republicans are predictably shortsighted about the ramifications of Russia influencing who we vote for at the ballot box. Every GOP candidate snickering in the corner about how well 2016 turned out should take a deep breath and realize that from this point forward, Putin's skills at manipulating the electorate will only increase and be harder to detect. In future elections, Putin may prefer a Democratic candidate. As Putin does in all his satellite states, Putin backs the horse destined to perform the worst, and do the deepest damage to the host country. Next time out, that might very well be a Democrat.
1
How do you know that Hillary would have still lost the election?
On what data/study do you based this opening statement?
It has been a Democrat. In 1960, 1976, 1992, 2008 ...
If you're going to be influeneced by Facebook innuendo, then you have your own problems.
8
We have a winner!
Lol. "Reached" 126 million. whatever that means. If you trust Facebook's metrics, you're about to overpay for your advertising.
5
Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
Facebook is owned and operated by Digital Sky Technologies, a wholly owned company by the Russian government. Mark Zuckerberg is a pawn of Vladimir Putin and fully knows what happened. Zuckerberg should be charged, convicted, and tossed into prison for a few hundred years.
5
Let me guess...you read about this on Facebook!
we are in a cyber war and we are losing
3
If you are not on Facebook, Google or Twit, then you can't be influenced by this stuff.
4
Sure you can--if huge numbers of those around you are.
I wonder how bad things will get for the 2020 election.
2
So about 3% of all Facebook users were “reached”. Any estimate how many actual voters had their minds changed?
1
Trump won the election by 70K votes across three cities. That was an easy target to reach!
2
We are on mean a mean society now. We are the worst generation.
1
My belief is we are reaping what we have sowed throughout the world for our own greed. I kind of hope the Russian did influence the election because it would put the US in its place to stop all the nonsense of regime changes and overthrowing govts we don't like because of profits. The chickens have come home to roost folks face it don't be a hypocrite about it.
1
Hmmm...at age 52 I have managed NOT to:
1) Buy a bridge in Brooklyn.
2) "Act Now" to receive non-existent products from TV advertisers.
3) Sign a contract for house painting or drive way sealing from Irish Travelers.
4) Take the insurance upgrade or gas topping from car rental agencies
5) Send $5000 to a deposed Nigerian prince to help him get the $100million he is owed.
6) Buy a salted gold/diamond/platinum/ruby mine.
7) Send $1000 to my non-existent grandson who's car happened to break down on the side of the road.
8) Buy an ostrich farm.
9) Pay for my family history including our original crest imprinted on glassware and swords.
10) Believe that the NYT actually prints "All the news..."
11
Well bully for you! However, there are plenty of gullible Americans who did fall for, believe and "shared" false stories promoted by Russia during the 2016 election!
Misleading headline. You don't know how many people were influenced.
6
Amazing. Compared to the sum of money spent by campaigns, you would have thought a few $100k wouldn't make a lot of difference. Imagine if Clinton had spent a few million on twitter and facebook or got her foundation to use some of the their money then she would have won for sure.
1
I see here very often defenders of Trump make the claim that Russia's interference did not tip the scale and put Trump in office. And that may very well be true. But those arguments miss the point. Russia did interfere, and in new ways that we discover every day. This should be an outrage to any American, regardless of party. Instead, we have a president refusing to enforce sanctions passed by congress and insisting the only scandal is a years-old uranium deal nominally touched on by the secretary of state. The only election investigation is a sham effort to root out illegal votes that never were cast. Trump supporters must understand that Democrats are not making the claim that the actual vote count was off or that Facebook threw the election. We are saying that we have been attacked by a hostile foreign power. And while Trump supporters rail against black athletes who protest silently and with dignity by kneeling for the anthem, they then lash out at any attempts to discover and fix the most egregious attack on our democracy in its history.
6
"Attacked by a hostile foreign power" lol
Do you have any idea what the National Endowment for Democracy does with it's money? You should investigate. You want see what political interference by a hostile foreign power looks like? Look at Venezuela. Look at Ukraine. Look at Serbia. Look at Thailand. Look at Russia.
Back in the early 1960's the then Premier of the USSR Nikita Khrushchev made a statement to the effect that eventually the capitalists would sell (them) the rope they would use to hang us.
It has taken almost 60 years, perhaps this, as with so much other, buying of political power by other means, is the culmination of that prediction.
1
Nice use of that analogy. Afraid it's not true. Communists aren't about to overthrow capitalism. Nor is anybody else, at the moment. Perhaps a more fitting analogy is that capitalists will buy anything, if you package it right.
Jam4807. It was not Khrushchev. The quote has, on dubious authority, been attributed to Lenin. See the late Mr. Safire's excellent column:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/12/magazine/on-language.html
I miss Bill Safire ...
Russia is not communist country, China is.
Russia likes olygarch
So, when is the next massive protest outside the Russian embassy and its consulates, and the phone calls to these??
It seems to me that the people who are angriest about Russians posting on Facebook are the Washington pols who believe that brainwashing the American voting public is ought to be the exclusive domain of shadowy high-paid American lobbyists. How DARE the Russians try to take over their turf...
This isn't about Facebook or Twitter. This all started during Obama's presidency when Republicans fell in love with Putin because he also hated Obama.
Partisanship and tribalism has reached a point in this country where if an admitted Russian spy ran against a Democrat in a Red-state congressional election, the Russian spy would win.
People won't care if the link says "Warning this is a Russian political ad"
If the headline says something about Hillary having Parkinsons or Obama disrespecting our veterans, they will click on it 10 times out of 10.
2
I don't need Russians to tell me that Hilary Clinton is nearly as greedy as Trumpi - her speech to Goldman Sachs suffices. The Koch Brother's influence with their billions of advertising I hope has not influenced me either. What is this renewed paranoia about Russian influence about, especially in the New York Times?
3
Given the razor thin margins of Trump's win I think we can fairly consider Donald Trump a pretender. Personally it Russian interference is proven I would j=love to see the election voided and a new election held within 6 months. I would also void any Trump legislation including Grouch's Appointment. One can dream that the world is fair.
4
57% of the [Electoral College] vote is hardly "razor thin".
the fact that FB is such an effective propaganda tool should drive the value of it's stock higher.
1
I can answer how I feel:
1) President Trump doesn't have the skill set to collude with two slices of bread and ham to make a sandwich. I doubt he could have led an effort of collusion to steal an election.
2) Spreading disinformation (or even basic negative facts) about Clinton isn't hacking an election by the Russians. If your fellow citizens are dumb enough to fall for it all, worry more about that.
3) You progressives have had absolutely no problem with the DNC and Clinton campaign paying a research firm to in turn pay Russian sources to continue digging up dirt on Trump. All's fair in politics until you lose? Clearly.
8
1). I agree, but others in the Trump campaign might have those skills and some, like Kushner, Brad Parscale, and Michael Glassner, bragged about using Facebook and other social media to target voters. But with what? And how targeted were the Russian ads?
2) The Russians “interfered” in the election by “hacking” into DNC servers and many state election servers, all illegal acts, and stealing DNC emails, more illegal acts, hacking into and stealing emails from John Podesta, also illegal acts, to help Trump.
A) The Russians then sought out Trump Campaign officials who might be interested in the stolen emails, and several were. This sounds like collusion, also an illegal act, or darned unpatriotic.
3) There is no evidence that Clinton or the DNC paid any Russians any money for research on Trump. The FBI and US intelligence became involved when reports surfaced that Russia was trying to help Trump.
4) Replace Clinton with Trump and see how you feel.
Dirt is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Is it "dirt" if its true about Trump, et. al.? No Chris, all is not fair in politics until you lose. Not "clearly." I don't know if you are a Republican or not. But lots of Republicans are pretty worried about foreign intrusion into our elections and the dissemination of false "information" in this manner. Why aren't you?
1
If people judged Trump based on his racist birther beginnings instead of something they read on Facebook, perhaps we wouldn't be in the massive mess we are today.
Can Facebook and Twitter turn a morally bankrupt man into a beacon of virtue by fiat? Apparently.
Trump is not the saddest part of this story. It's the moral judgement of the minority that voted for him.
5
How can Trump (born 1946) have "birther beginnings" when Birtherism was started by Hillary in 2007? He must have seen Obama coming in the cradle. Wish we had.
As for racist, do you apply your standards to Robert Byrd? There is no reason half of West Virginia should be named after a KKK guy. Tear down those plaques!
Is our set of values so eroded that we must now block criticism and foreign propaganda for fear that "it will sow discord? among us? Is the government attempting to limit our ability to read whatever we want? This seems to me just one step short of making it a felony to read or listen to sources discordant to the US mainstream/establishment narrative.
The US seems inclined to shut off the sources rather that locking up the listeners. But this is the era of information. I think we will have to do better that trying to force blinders on people.
And may be some of the seeds of discord are native.
I don't subscribe to Facebook or Twitter, etc. All seem to me a waste of time. Still I always thought that Hillary Clinton was a detestable candidate and after Bernie's fall I opted for who seemed to be the lesser of two evils.
Of course President Trump appears now to be more loco than I thought possible.
The Castro regime made it a crime punishable with jail time the listening to foreign radio in 1960. That included BBC, VOA, Radio Swan (who remembers the CIA station transmitting to Cuba from Swan Island?) and anything else not approved by the regime. The US Congress should not follow Castro's steps
5
No doubt in my mind that not only the government but our mainstream media is attempting to weaken FB, Twitter, Google, etc. And, I am more concerned about foreign governments, special interests and Wall Street etc. buying our politicians
I can't help thinking that regardless of what Facebook did, or the Russians did, if the USA held the election on a Sunday, with paper ballots, and cracked down on any attempt to take people off the electoral rolls, the result would not have been in Trump's favour. While it's important to get to the bottom of the Russia story, Democrats should also do their damnest to protect voter rights.
6
I agree we all talk about getting people to vote yet we hold important elections on Tuesday. Lets be honest America does not want everyone to vote. We have added early voting but why not Sunday or why not make voting fay a holiday during national elections.
I agree, is it really necessary to automate and computerize everything. Maybe Paper is the way to go. The very fact that Russians did hack some machines tells me Paper may be the safest route. The votes can be instantly tallied unless there are write ins and you still have a paper trail.
5
"The very fact that Russians did hack some machines"
Do you have a source for this supposed fact?
The lede paragraph states that Russians placed thousands of "inflammatory" posts designed to divide the American people. Could you give a few examples? Was the information false?
6
Ouch! It always hurts when you're beaten at a game you basically invented. And one need not go into the archives of the USIA or Voice of America or Radio Free whatever for evidence of relentless propaganda from sources right here in the U.S. In fact, one need not even look back since this newspaper has been shading reportage to meet its own ideological ends with particular frenzy since the 2016 election. The worst accusation in this article is that there was "meddling" and an emphasis on "divisive" issues propagated on Facebook by RT. The authors shy away from going so far as to accuse RT of outright lying, probably because they were hard pressed to find examples. The reason RT has acquired its enormous following is that it actually reads such publications as the NY Times and gives serious consideration to the stories the paper prints on page 37 where casual readers are less likely to linger particularly in the online version of the publication since the Times editors of that particular outlet have even more control over what they wish to emphasize or downplay. This paper has to conjure up a lot of nerve to even mention the reporting on Syria, a particularly egregious case of mainstream media taking its cues from the Pentagon and the State Department rather than the reality on the ground. It's true that one can often find coverage of our covert activities, but one needs to look carefully. The present campaign against Russian news outlets is an embarrassment.
3
So because the US has promoted propaganda in other countries we US citizens should be happy to watch Russian propaganda?
3
Who knew you could brainwash the country into voting for Trump for a mere $100,000.
And start the BLM and DAPL movements, the NFL protests, ...
Those darn Russians sure got a good bang for their buck.
We should hire them to get Medicare4All, a living wage, free college, paid maternal/paternal leave and a whole list of things Congress seems unwilling/unable to provide.
At $100,000, if we crowdfund it, it'll only cost a few cents each.
Let's do this !
5
Whatever the 2015 and 2016 Russian influence has been in collating 'dirt' on H. Clinton, it pales alongside the Machiavellian attacks on her by the rightwing Republicans since 1994. They began then to fear her political potential, and the smear campaign which started then has never been, to this day, relaxed.
Talk/shock rightwing (mainly AM) radio was the primary tool. If the US used its slander and hate-crimes laws, this would have been squashed in its cradle. It's not clear the US will in fact survive its gullibility for trash-talk.
7
Relieved to hear that the companies are taking some steps in the right direction. Now, since they've been able to count the number of times nefarious things were viewed and liked and shared, could they please inform the people who viewed and liked and shared them, so we/they can see the personal impact?
5
The problem isn't the Russians. The problem is a uninformed, easily deceived electorate that hungers for the juicy tidbits, memes, and soundbites that reinforce their own perceptions of the world.
Maybe that's human nature but so also is promoting the interests of one's country like the Russians have done.
We live in a world of politics, intrigue, diplomacy. We've done it. Russians have done it. American government officials have misled American citizens, Russians have done the same with their own citizens.
The only answer is knowledge and critical thinking. Of course that's harder than pointing the finger at Facebook and Russia...
55
Lot's of informed voters in NC, FL, PA, MI, and WI noted the absence of a strong on the ground game (get out the vote, make sure the voters are registered) by Hillary2016 in the fall of 2016, and those voters stayed home or voted Trump.
True, nothing to do with Russian anything.
2
Maybe people are easily deceived, as you say. Maybe not so easily when sources are identified for what they are. Other than giving you the feeling of moral and intellectual superiority, why are you so willing to allow this practice to go on unchecked? We should have the sources identified and the fact this was planted and that bots were enabled to perform this task should have been known much, much earlier.
I'm beginning to think that maybe we should require people to pass a civics test - and maybe an intelligence test - before they're allowed to vote. Right now, any terrifyingly ignorant moron can vote, if he/she can prove they're an American citizen.
A communication platform that allows anonymous participants to broadcast messages of hate and division using vile, aggressive language is not a social network; it is in fact an anti-social network. Facebook, Twitter and all the rest of these platforms are contaminated. They need extensive rehabilitation. Only two things will make them change. Regulation, requiring full disclosure of identity of all posters and advertisers, or loss of eyeballs from users who are disgusted with the situation and simply leave the platforms until they come to grips with reality. Individual users cannot regulate these platforms, only government can. But individuals can leave these platforms, depriving them of the assets that make them valuable as sources of ad revenue.
It may be time to un-friend Facebook
41
Facebook can solve the problem easily: by getting rid of the 'share' button. It's amazing how many people share stuff they woudln't bother to copy and paste. (Oh, and pre-FB I got such 'shared' messages forwarded to me via my cloud-based email account. So it's not just the one company that's the problem.)
2
So says "J Henry," anonymously, and without any apparent sense of irony, on this "communication platform."
I don't see how you can say that and then leave a comment that is anonymous.
The Russians sowed retail level discord. Every day our corporate overlords and their politician/servants sow wholesale level discord. What is more worrisome, policies that escalate inequality or reminders that there is inequality?
6
Even facing mounting evidence and the admission by these internet companis of the extent of the Russian manipulation and the numbers reached, there are disbelievers, those that are skeptics want more numbers and those that say that the US does it so it is ok that the Russians did it to us. And we question whether the Russians could influence our electorate! Sad.
1
What impact is Russia, through similar channels, having on the Spanish/Catalonia discord ?
4
None of the reported numbers strike me as being anywhere close to accurate. I don't have any way of knowing the facts, but I sure saw a lot of Pizzagate posts at Facebook, and I don't have very many FB friends who were opposed to Secretary Clinton.
1
FB tracks everything and everyone and then cross references all data.
They knew.
5
Trump and Putin are cut from the same personality cloth. They both can dish it out but can't take it. We should starting hacking into Russian elections. Oh, I forgot - there are no Russian elections. Bet Trump would love to switch places with Putin.
3
America gave the Russians Yeltsin, and they turned around and gave us Trump.
1
One has to imagine that China, North Korea, and other cyber adversaries are busy learning and enhancing this playbook for future elections.
5
It is simply impossible to read the extent of Russia's efforts and conclude that it had no direct impact on the election. Donald is Russia's candidate. If ever an election called for a "do-over," this is it.
4
Since I do not Facebook nor twitter I don't care.
Since I am an American I care about what Barack Obama did to detect, deter and defeat this intrusion by the Russians and the Israelis in our politics and elections.
3
Personally, I think Russia's attempt to influence the presidential election did more to improve the NYT's subscription numbers then to put Trump in the White House.
4
This report is so misleading and wrong that the NY Times should be ashamed. Reaching 126 million is suspect unless someone shows the details behind it.. It would be the most effective advertising campaign run with such a small investment.. far greater than many viral advertisements or youtube videos produced by one of the top Media houses in the business. So please peddle this nonsense somewhere else, but person with any critical thinking will believe this.
2
Nice to see that donation to the Hillary Campaign was spent on buying info from the Russian; gave the Russians the cash to buy the Ad's.
7
126 million Ruskies?! Wow I wonder how much of the 40 million who came were counted as supporter of Trump when he stated that Mueller's indictments were fake news were Ruskies?
Given the amounts spent by the regular guys ( ie campaigns from all parties / PACs etc... ) on FB and others social media in the US, one wonders what have to be done to preserve democracy in the USA. If a few hundred thousand dollars can reach 12OK people, what about a million ? or 10 ? or a 100 ??
The big question for me is why is it legal in the USA that you can literally buy an election thru social medias ? Never mind the Russians, but be scared of Bannon or any other loony extremist ( on all sides ) working to promote their agenda.
4
Whether it's the Russians, or our government, or the media, or our own parents, we've been brainwashed, indoctrinated and manipulated since the day we were born to buy into American exceptionalism, the virtue of capitalism, that what we watch on TV is the truth. There's no escaping it. Our minds are not our own. In the presidential election, America got a taste of what's it been doing to the rest of the world for decades: installing and deposing regimes in pursuit of its own interests. Let's be real for once about our own hypocrisy.
9
Latyear during his campaign. Mr. trump publicly asked Russia,and only Russia to meddle in the U.S. presidential election,by hacking the State Dept. and finding Hillarys emails.
Now we know of Russia internet trolls trying to influence the past election,. And now Mr. Trump has tweeted possibly they were working to get Hillary elected. Ah,the hypocrisy of it all.
4
It's been interesting to hear Mark Zuckerberg talk about how he doesn't think the Russian fake news articles affected the election. Could there be a worse message to send to Facebook's potential advertisers? "Advertise here but rest assured you won't be able to convince anyone to buy your product." Advertising is the original "fake news." Fake glamour products. Fake healthcare products. Fake religious appeals. Companies wouldn't spend the billions of dollars they do on advertising if it didn't work. It worked just fine, Mark. Fake news worked "as advertised."
4
Anyone who picks his/her president based on reading something on FB is a fool.
The "126 million" figure? Baloney. I see ads every day on FB, which I regularly ignore and/or block. So does every other thinking person.
6
At least our Commander-in-Chief is fighting Russian influence in American politics................ tooth and nail.
It sounds as if, with Facebook's targeting of ads, Russian trolls had no need of information from the GOP mailing lists.
1
It is not just Facebook, Instagram, Twitter that are complicit in the stealing of the 2016 election. The mainstream press shares the blame as well.
Exhibit A:
A New York Times headline on Oct 31, 2016
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
By Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers
3
Mark Warner, really?
1
So this is how Putin's Russia has attempted to influence the American political process through social media. Big Brother (aka Vlad Putin) now has direct input to most American citizens through the Internet. It is frightening to think that a foreign government is influencing Americans by setting up phony straw men on Facebook and Google and that Americans actually believe that these postings are from like-minded fellow citizens. I never understood how anyone watching Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign could have voted for this dolt. I now see how Russia helped Trump get elected by those who believed that what they were reading on "social media" was being posted by like-minded fellow American citizens.
So is President Trump a result of Russian collusion with the American electorate? Probably. Did Trump himself collude with Russia? Probably. Isn't asking Russia to release Hillary Clinton's emails hacked from the DNC a form of "collusion"? Much is still strange here. But one thing is certain. Donald J. Trump is the first person appointed to the office of President of the United States with the help of the Russian government. How do the Trump supporters and the Republican Part feel about that?????
48
They don't believe it.
We are witness to a War of the Classes. In addition to Russian influence on Facebook, there are some wealthy Americans backing news sources such as Fox and Breitbart in an attempt to hang on to their money, their way of life, their narrow beliefs, their tax benefits, and to keep everyone else in their place. To do this requires razzle-dazzling votes out of the poor and middle class by feeding them misinformation.
Razzle-dazzle works. It worked in the campaign; it is working now. It also provides cover for those who know better (Republican Congress - Social Media) but whose livelihood is more important to them than the health of our nation.
Democracy is facing the Perfect Storm.
3
They feel fine. Just ask them. They will say "the Democrats are worse!".
They don't feel a thing because they will not even look at it while drunk.
Let's see now...... The US acknowledged spending at least $5 billion fomenting the coup in the Ukraine -- a clear interference with that country's elected government. And "we" were successful, "Yats" was indeed "our guy." At least for a while.
Now the NYTimes says the Russians were "disseminating inflammatory posts" and "sowing discord" -- all without showing us the so-called Russian posts let alone putting them in context with US attempts to do even more......in the Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Syria, etc, etc.
Please. Enough of this nonsense. It's just the latest version of "Iraq has WMDs."
8
The usual course of action when one country has a grievance with another country is to take the matter to an international body such as the UN or the International Criminal Court.
Washington hasn't taken this step because it knows it would get laughed out of the court. At the age of ten years, my daughter was able to comprehend and express the moral principle involved here - that it is hypocritical for one to condemn another's actions when one is also engaging in those same actions.
The media and many of our politicians clearly have not reached the level of moral sophistication of my 10 year-old daughter.
2
So the Russians bought $100,000 worth of advertising. Mr. Obama sent a taxpayer funded team into Israel to set up an office and campaign against Netenyahu. Talk about meddling.
8
Is this not a teachable moment? Let's have social media folks re-post some of the misinformation under a banner that says "This is verified fake news. If this posting influenced your thinking you have been manipulated by a Russia sponsored misinformation campaign. (Social media outlet) is constantly working to identify and remove such postings, but you are ultimately responsible for determining the accuracy of any claims or comments on social media."
3
Well, it didn't reach ME. I don't subscribe to facebook, in any way shape or form.
Of course, I'm an 'outlier' when it comes to refusing to be a party to the social media trenders dissemination of junk news. But. doesn't that kind of say it all about how easily our nation's undereducated democracy has been so quickly hijacked by a bunch of power and money hungry gangsters? ISIS included.
9
Wow, Trump was right after all. The election was rigged.
7
If you rely on Facebook as a credible news source, you'll be surprised how much you can learn from the National Enquirer. If you rely on advertising -- any advertising -- as a reliable news source, the Shopping Channel will give you all the facts you need.
10
If the Russians won the US election with $100,000.00, they should be given a ticker tape parade.
Their accomplishment beats anything Lindbergh did.
12
It's still illegal, no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.
All I see from this article is numbers.
I would like to know more.
I want to know what was in these videos and is there any evidence that people were influenced by it.
I don't go to Facebook or to twitter to get news
I know many people who voted for Trump and do go to Facebook but they usually do it to watch things like cats dancing…
Cats don't dance so I think they are idiots to spend time owing something so stupid.
They will say the same about me, when I tell them I read the Times, which did try to sway people to vote for Hillary, which I did do.
From this I believe if anything Hillary probably was helped more than Trump was from stuff we saw on the internet.
I believe that the effect on the election the stuff people saw on the internet had was very little.
People who supported Trump went to sites that supported him and therefore was not the reason they voted for him and the same goes for the people who went to sites that supported Clinton and ended up voting for her
I think is a non issue and the people who make it one should stop.
Clinton actually won the election.
The only reason Trump is President is because of the way the Constitution tells us how to determine who becomes President.
If anything blame the Constitution and not the Russians.
.
3
You must not have ever received a viral message with 20 other people in the send list. My late step-father was always sending ridiculous "news" that was circulating like wildfire. I had an acquaintance that did the same. The more salacious or damaging the more they liked it. Just because you are smart enough to check sources doesn't mean that millions of others are. Don't underestimate the power of gossip. People want to believe it. It makes their lives more interesting and gives them something to talk about.
36
If what you say is correct then how did Clinton get almost three million votes than Trump did
She lost because he popular vote doesn't decide the election
It's the electorial vote by state.
You win a state by one vote you get all its electorial votes.
This is in the Constitution.
I believe if the electorial votes won by each candidate were calculated based on the percent of the total vote they got in a state then she would have won.
I am sure many people were affected by what they read in the internet but that went for both candidates.
What I think you are missing is that the stuff that was circulated by people like your step father did not only come only from the Russians.
Clinton should be the President but she isn't and we have to accept that Trump is.
If you can get rid of Trump you will have Pence.
Do you really want that.
[
.
It was also Constitutional at that time to allow only white men to vote. It wasn't a unanimous decision by our forefathers to use the electoral college and two reasons they did so was because of slavery and the controversy over women voting. There have been many amendments to the Constitution as history has progressed beyond what our forefathers could have dreamed. Now that women and blacks can vote it might be time to consider what the rest of the Constitutional Congress wanted, which was a popular vote.
2
So .74% of all election posts somehow swayed the election of this United States? That out of the eleven trillion posts, a million or so somehow made a big difference in the end? Putin didn't need to do anything and he didn't do anything. There was never a need for putin to use facebook or twitter, the NYT and others are and will always be doing it for him.
Because we all know that it's American mainstream news outlets and papers divide this nation, just look up a BLM protest or just turn on the news. You'll see plenty of examples.
A little Russian Today isn't gonna change much.
4
Kruschev was correct --pounding his shoe on the podium in the UN. We are destroying ourselves from within.
The all too easy brain control, in which Zuckerberg exploits his users' narcicism to become a trillionaire, allows and promotes and leverages the propagation of lies.
Let's "face" it: most of the content on FaceBook is a lie.
That's why our teenagers are committing suicide--convinced they are losers --just so Lying Zuckerberg can become a trillionaire-- pushing ads into the brains of vulnerable youth with zero self-esteem.
Just because someone "invented" TNT does not give him the right to blow everything up.
5
126M had any contact with Russian intrusion thru Facebook. Do you get your main news of the world from Facebook? If the answer to that is yes, God Bless you.
Putin and company tried to influence the last US Presidential election. They did a very poor job of it. Hillary Clinton, a terrible candidate aided by a bungling staff and Party, lost. She did not lose due to Russian attempts to get back at her and Obama for interfering in Russian internal affairs.
There is so far, zero, nil, nada proof of any Trump/Russian collusion. Now how about investigation and stories on Obama and co.s involvement in over-playing FISA requests and unmasking, of which there is bokoo evidence?
5
Americans,conditioned by advertising ,still purchase products based on jingles and images imprinted during childhood.
Facebook and Twitter are , "medium is the message",forms of continuos conditioning where "apparent" social discourse and views are easily morphed formed, and sold as commercially or politically desired opinions ......effectively modifying users self concepts.
The corrupt, totalitarian ,Soviet Union managed to survive as long as it did, through using political propaganda on popular opinion, The 126 million hits on,Russian, Facebook posts .........would indicate their influence on the US election was ,precisely targeted and expertly effective!
Russian intervention (with some American collusion) was blatant interference and rigging of the US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.......as the "dozens" of indictments ,by the Special Prosecutor ........WILL PROVE !
1
I go on Rolling Stone's website daily (I'm a music lover) and that site is infested with Russian trolls. They're like cockroaches crawling out of the word work. I have called a few of them out and they disappeared from the site. They're pretty easy to spot on Rolling Stone.
1
Collusion of corporate and government entities, I believe it is called Fascism.
It is here and now.
4
It's apparently okay for the wealthy and their corporations to subvert our democracy, in fact, it's portrayed as the very essence of democracy. Money is now political speech in the USA.
3
A $100,000 sum spent by Russians on FB? Really? That's a rounding-off error considering how much the Clinton and Trump campaigns spent for advertising in the last election cycle, not including the RNC and DNC.
Russian influence should be publicized and controlled where possible, but can we please stop freaking out about it? We're a stronger nation than this...
6
So I see the Times offers no confirmation for the assertion that the Internet Research Agency has ties to the Russian state.
5
Please. During the Super Bowl this year advertisers spent up to $5 million for a 30-second spot. Of the 112 million people who watched, how many Volvo drivers among them suddenly wanted to buy Chevrolets? Does anyone think the Russians got better results regarding presidential candidate allegiance for the paltry hundred grand they spent on Facebook?
A collective ennui is settling over the land regarding this hair-on-fire treatment of everything Russia. A throwdown to the NYT who have been flacking this Facebook angle well beyond its expiration date - go out and find voters (or even one) who were determined to vote for Hillary until their eyes happened to glance at one of these Facebook ads and then totally flipped and voted for Trump. I am anxiously awaiting reading what these people have to say.
4
Hello Tulsa. You make some good points but seem to gloss over Trump and team's avalanche of lies, undermining US institutions, provoking conflict and hatred by design, and actively embracing illegal Russian assistance and corrupt narratives. I am with you generally and not too worried. Fortunately, the American system seems to be working well with Mueller despite republican complicity to stand by their man no matter what new low he breaches. As a country, perhaps we are getting exactly what we deserve with or without Russia with love. We will rise again once we remember our commonalities of citizenship and responsibilities to each other and future generations.
you only have to convince about 70,000 weak/moderate Democrats/fence sitters not to vote.
Thanks to shifty characters like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, and to the ugly, shiftless, dangerous Citizen's United case, the spigots are open, and the deplorable right wing's millions upon millions of dollars (that means you, Koch Bros and Mercer family) lying, openly and brazenly, has become the currency of modern American life.
1
Facebook is a threat to democracy. It's not about connectivity, transparency or "openness". It's about monetizing users personal information and selling it to the highest bidder - regardless of the intent or nationality.
Without Facebook, we wouldn't have Trump as president. So, for all of the vehement anti-Trumpers....why are you still on Facebook and supporting that company ?
I have never been on Facebook and never will. I knew it was trouble from the very beginning. I can call, email or actually meet my family and friends to keep up. I don't need a fake network of " friends" to divulge every personal detail of my life. Disgusting.
4
I had several relatives reposting Russia-originated stuff. It was obvious at the time.
4
As the conservative Supreme Court would say:
“Money talks”, um, I mean, “money is speech”.
Amazing leverage these Russians have. For expenditures in the thousands of dollars they apparently influenced voters more than the tens of millions spent by the Clinton campaign.
4
and toothpaste ads reached 3billion users, who knew we could change he world in a half dozen tweets and ads, also global warming
2
During the election, I saw Facebook friends -- mostly elderly relatives -- liking and sharing ridiculous, inflammatory, hateful, obviously false stories against Clinton. It never occurred to me that they were planted by a foreign country but I certainly knew they were false. But I chose to politely ignore them out of courtesy to my relatives and a desire to not engage in online arguments. Now I think that I and everyone else who made the same choice were complicit.
85
More likely stupid or foolish, not complicit, that means doing something on purpose. Sort of the like the difference between a mistake and a lie.
Actually the problem is Facebook itself. Thank you.
6
I find this hard to believe - that a silly social media application could have an affect on the United States Presidential election. Makes you stop and think.
4
Citizens United is a big source of these dark money problems. We need to get dark money out of politics and influence should be limited. Corporations are not people.
As a user of FB (and as a stock holder) I am deeply disappointed in how FB corporate has responded to this problem. Fake accounts, political adds that do not clearly identify who is funding them, and most egregious of all FB offering advertisers target audiences of "people who hate Jews", etc.
1
Russian meddling is certainly bad. Trump is a terrible human being. BUT I have not been moved by these stories of $100,000 and $53,000. That is literally six dinners at one of these $25,000 per plate events. That amount of money is literally a rounding error in how how was spent on the campaign (over a billion). Either is was the most effectively spend political money in human history or this was not as big of a factor as this article and others are making it. Where is the perspective?
1
Social media is the news slavery. And it's voluntary. Billions of people can't see anything beyond the screens of their smart phones. And it influences their lives in every which way possible.126 million viewers? Really. I bet it's hundreds of millions. And the effect is devastating. LOOK WHO IS PRESIDENT.
4
i don't get it. i see lame posts on FB frequently, and scroll right past them. what difference does it make whether a post's source is a shadowy agency with ties to moscow, or a crackpot basement recluse with ties to nobody?
within the bounds that facebook specifies, anyone can post anything they want there, including distortions and lies. unlike the comments section of the nytimes, facebook is an uncensored free speech arena. as long as that's understood, where's the problem?
if (eg) 200K people choose to click the "like" button on a post, regardless of its source (credible or crackpot), so what?
22
Are you educated? thoughtful? independent? open-minded? happy with your lot in life? happy with the liberal-leaning direction of the country under Obama?
do you read legitimate news sources (obviously -- yes, you're here)? Many of those influenced by the posts were none of the above, or probably not all of the above.
1
Shirley --
Because elements of a hostile foreign power have been allowed to secretly become part of our national conversation. A conversation leads to opinions, and opinions lead to votes. Get it?
@andy: people can be influenced by all kinds of posts, including those of the crackpot variety whose authors may live in kansas or kazakhstan. i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein said the following, concerning American citizens and social media: "You know, American citizens are pretty savvy, and they decide who to vote for. I don’t think they’d be influenced by ads posted by foreign governments. I think people are more thoughtful about that in the way that they make their decisions."
Perhaps the Deputy Attorney General has forgotten about Edgar Welch, the man who opened fire with an assault rifle in a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. Why did he do that?
Here's why: "...social media in the days before the election circulated fake news stories claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s backrooms."
Mr. Rosenstein, do you still want to stick with your story? Too many Trump backers are not what I'd call "savvy," including the shooter. Sex ring? Hillary? Pizza restaurant? Your definition of "savvy" is way different from mine.
4
Google and Facebook post a huge, unprecedented volume of advertising. Unlike in media from a previous age, it is done by an automated process. Yes, they should try to keep improper content off their pages, but it’s not like pulling a TV ad off a network, but more like trying to find the goldfish in an ocean.
Keeping election meddling by foreign agents off our search and social internet is a worthy goal. I believe the companies involved will make their best effort, but we need to focus on the real problem, one that actually makes a difference: the fact that many of the richest among us do not care about others, and that tens of millions of us are willing to buy into vitriol and nonsense.
2
Has everyone forgotten the study reported on CNN's web site which concluded that voters were influenced by reports over computer servers. But they were referring to Comey's FBI report about Clinton's emails, not the DNC.
In fact there's no evidence that the DNC emails had any effect on the electorate. And many highly credible experts have cast doubt on the conclusion that the DNC servers were even hacked. Their reports can be read in Robert Perry's excellent stories on this issue,
Given that, this Facebook story amounts to a lot of column inches over nothing. Finally, note how the early stories used terms like "steal our elections" or "undermine our democracy." They have very quietly changed to "colluding."
There is no crime in our federal statutes called 'colluding'. There are a number of conspiracy statutes, but to have a conspiracy you have to have an underlying criminal act.
If there was Russian hacking of the DNC, which is a crime, and if there are Trump lieutenants connected to them, then why not use "conspiracy" to describe what happened?
The answer is because so far all the evidence points to Trump's people simply trying to loot the Russian piggy bank. None of them seemed to have given a wit about the DNC emails.
When will we learn? Whatever the product, whether it be Facebook or Twitter or any app out there: when it is free, YOU are being sold at a profit by the company to the highest bidder, repeatedly. Our supposed convenience of connectivity is nothing more than an erosion of privacy and freedom.
1
Our political party campaign system and all the money that flows into it incentivize distortion, deception, and division. Putin simply took advantage of what he found ready-made. When are we going to address that fundamental weakness?
The only way that Facebook could prevent this manipulative attack and abuse by Kremlin-linked operatives would be to willfully go out of business. We should all rejoice if they did so.
Right now, Facebook is like Big Tobacco: lying to us that its product is good for you and hiding what it knows. FB's business model has grown like an incurable cancer. It must be cut out. No law can force FB to abandon emotion-centered algorithms. Proving that such algorithms quantifiably cause damage to anything or anyone is impossible. Why would FB voluntarily abandon a model that helps it serve its advertising customers?
Personally, I don't want a news feed when I am reaching out to friends or family members. I don't want my feelings to be secretly analyzed, shared and commoditized. That's why FB doesn't know who I am and why I wasn't exposed to Russian propaganda during the election.
1
To use the internet for news, as opposed to "fake" news, and opinion, in contrast to propaganda, requires some level of objectivity, background, and discernment. Unfortunately, too many seek only justification of views or (fake) information already absorbed. I see no clear solution to this malaise that seemingly always afflicts a body politic. "Education" -- in its most fundamental, not formal sense -- can help, but the core of the problem clearly is deeper (see Goebel, Mencken, Churchill).
I am a proud American, but I find myself asking if Russia's conduct was fundamentally different than ours during the Cold War through Radio Free Europe for instance. Yes, I am much more likely to believe what was broadcast on RFE, than whatever nonsense Russia's agents posted on social media, but in the end the underlying act was the same. A foreign government tried to reach another country's populace directly through the best possible communications medium available at the time.
2
And for every like, share, or comment on Facebook, everyone in that person's news feed saw the Russian-fed content. Considering how much political content was swirling around during the year-long election cycle, it is safe to say the impact of the Russian content could be measured in billions, not millions.
But let's not act like it is over. Read any New York Times or Washington Post article on Facebook, and there is almost automatically a troll responding to it with the most outrageous claims, deflection about Hillary Clinton, or inflammatory comments. The accounts are usually easy to spot, with no profile picture, no other account pictures, and no friends. But the next time around they will be more sophisticated, and harder to spot.
It would be interesting to hear how much the information security office (ISO) at Facebook or Twitter knew about (the successful) Russian attempts to influence the election. They can see the IP addresses of the accounts. They know who has multiple accounts, and who doesn't. They can see all of the history, communication, etc. and probably more. I'm guessing they could even look for patterns of memes being copied quickly across many profiles. In other words, they knew people were doing this. From a business prospective, though, it's not good for the near-monopoly social media sites to appear too heavy-handed, lest the customers get scared and bolt to another platform. But they knew.
The Trump-Pence-Bannon campaign and administration exposed the delusion in which Americans live: Our political system functions according to the US Constitution's highest expectations. The USA has the opportunity to examine itself and ALL of it's social & political problems that have, again, been laid bare. To fail to act will end the nation.
The first issue must be to suspend Citizen's United ruling and outlaw all lobbying. Next, reinstate the 'equal time' law for all media (this was removed in 1987 leading to the media empires of single view propaganda). Last, redistrict according to plan promoted by (former) Governor Schwarzenegger - the former was designed to prevent an unqualified person assuming office and this has never been the reality even before today and the latter is about gerrymadering, a well agreed upon problem.
The present administration's gift to the USA is their abject greed and incompetence, traits all of us beyond retirement age have lived through more than once before, and always were the results of the same character traits in the elected and appointed officials.
What are we leaving to our grandchildren and great grandchildren if we all do not act now?
1
This is actually about censoring legitimate dissent. Do people really believe that Black Lives Matter were driven to "sow discontent" by the Russians?
In response to pressure from political leaders, Google has adjusted its algorithms to lower search traffic to left websites like Counterpunch. This is a thinly disguised dissent censorship campaign. The whole tenor is to limit free speech to save our "democracy," that dissent "sows discontent."
If anything, the election showed the discontent in the country is brimming over with legitimate complaints. For one, both presidential candidates polled at more than 54% negative! What's democratic about running two extremely disliked candidates for president? Now they want to use anti-Russian hysteria to control content on the internet.
For example, $100,000 in ads on Facebook is one tenth of one percent of their 2016 political ads. Of the 3,000 ads, only 44% even ran before the election, which means they were NOT highly targeted as these articles have said. Highly targeted ads are checked to see what makes people click on them and then are adjusted to encourage more clicks. These ads were posted and apparently forgotten. 25% never ran at all. And they contained material that's on FOXNews 24/7, nothing special.
2
Of course it's facebook's problem to fix and not the personal responsibility of it's users to be better informed and thoughtful. How dare one ask citizens in a democracy to be informed?
Facebook is a multibillion dollar company who's product is your personal information. Maybe we should let that sink in before we surrender to it our images (which they run advanced facial recognition on), our preferences (likes and dislikes), our network of family and friends and coworkers, and our comments and preferred news stories.
The less we use facebook and other social media outlets that traps us in an echo chamber, the better we'll all be individually and collectively.
1
My friends and family consider me "off the grid" since I have neither Facebook nor Twitter accounts. I'm curious how many of the key 80,000 voters in PA, WI and MI have "utilized" these social services.
2
I believe that the government should not regulate content on the Internet - that sets a very dangerous precedent on our constitutional right to free speech. However, any paid social media political advertising should be fact checked for accuracy by the hosting sites and they should be required to clearly mark paid ads as such. Ads should NEVER be allowed to be structured like legitimate news articles. It's very misleading and should be banned.
1
There was a great study awhile back about what influences people to make a moral choice. It used message cards in a hotel to recommend that guests hang their towels up (thereby saving water). The winning card? It was the one that mentioned "other guests" were doing the same thing.
36,000 "other guests" on Twitter screaming about jailing an opposing candidate, and sharing and liking each and every post among one another would have a powerful effect. Twitter needs to get a handle on robot accounts. They are damaging the country, not mention damaging their brand.
The media is doing it's best to make it seem like over 62 million people (46% of the population) didn't show up to the polls themselves and vote for Trump and that it was somehow the Russians that got him elected.
Facebook, Twitter et al, their only concern right now is to look good enough so that the regulation hammer does not hit them too hard.
Politicians want to regulate these platforms because that's what they are supposed to do and "traditional media" are trying to ruin the reputations of these platforms. This fight is also a matter of survival for "traditional media" in their quest for advertising dollars.
This means an ad showed up on the Facebook scroll of 126 million people. How many people actually even read the ad? How many were even in the slightest bit affected by it if they did glance at it?
Who changes their world view based on a Facebook ad?
It's hilariously naive if people think this is even remotely significant.
If Russians spending a few hundred thousand on FB ads was more effective in convincing voters than literal billions of dollars spent by the Clinton campaign and DNC super-pacs then maybe we have a whole lot to re-evaluate in terms of the candidates we back and the grossly incompetent way we spend those billions of ad dollars.
Meanwhile Paul Manafort along with the Podesta Group acting as agents for a foreign government lobbied Congress on behalf of Russia for influence in your political system, including bribery, money laundering and kick backs.
4
While Congress is investigating Russian attempts to influence our elections with fake news, why have neither the Congress nor newspaper publishers called for investigating some of our elected politicians, former political candidates, and our two major political parties for making false promises to Americans in order to win our votes? Why don’t we criminalize false campaign promises of political candidates and political party platforms for false advertising to fraudulently win our votes?
1
Personally, I find what Russians had for breakfast this morning far more interesting than what my American friends are eating. We should encourage far more foreign Facebook influence simply to get us out of the same old rut we've dug for us. I don't hate the Russians. Hate is wrong, remember? I think anyone with money and power should be free to influence me, not just American corporate and political ones.
3
Harry Truman made his name as a senator by heading a committee looking into war profiteers in WWII. Facebook, twitter, etc. were war profiteers. They got called out on it, and now are looking to do what they can to minimize the business fallout. The question is, will they do as much as they can, or as little as they think they can get away with?
1
Really, we don't need Russia to tear us apart. We seem to be doing that very well all on our own.
3
There was a terrible, outrageous media campaign to slander a candidate. No, not the efforts of the Trump campaign against Clinton. Rather, the campaign of destruction against Sanders waged by Clinton and her backers, and aided and abetted to a huge extent by the mainstream media. First Sanders was ignored, then when it was impossible to ignore him, tens of millions of dollars, at least, and vast social media efforts were used to try to discredit him as a sexist and racist. The phony term, Bernie Bros., is still in common use.
The nerve of the Clinton campaign and its big media backers to complain about a few Facebook ads from Russia costing a mere hundred thousand dollars.
Facebook needs to tell those 126 million people that they were targeted and how. Show the ads and prominently explain that these were created by the Russian government and shown to you in an effort to influence your opinion and weaken this country.
They, both Russia and Facebook, have contributed to poisoning our political life. Facebook must start doing the work to undo the damage.
So Vladimir Putin spends $100K and reaches 130 million Americans. Impressive ROI. The variable, however, are those Americans who see and digest the fake and inflammatory stories strategically placed throughout social media. Clearly (though yet to be proven) the Russians had some help with their effective targeting of key voting blocks (usually the expertise of good campaign machinery), but the elephant here is that American voters turned out to be equally complicit in this dastardly act. Voters need to believe and/or respond to these stories, and vote accordingly. For some, they were all too happy to help promote false stories and accusations re: HRC. For the rest, were they so uninformed or apathetic that they didn't realize these were bogus stories? This all says a lot more about the state of the American voter than it does about Putin, or Facebook, for that matter.
54
And the Clinton campaign spends several hundred million and does not manage to reach these same people????
Facebook allows ad purchasers to target specific demographics. The system itself helped the spread of propaganda to those most likely to be inflamed by the fake news and vote. And I would say that it not only says a lot about the state of the American voter, but is also a horrific indictment against the state of American education.
I propose that we first get rid of RT and Sputnik as purveyors of untruths and falsehoods. Then we go after the National Enquirer...
In an odd way, this reminds me of the hippies from the Summer of Love, which started with peace, love, and understanding then descended into hard drugs, violence, and chaos. The bad guys can't seem to leave a good thing alone.
I guess it is easier for those who voted for Clinton to believe that Russia swayed enough voters through Facebook and Twitter then to accept that Trump eked out enough votes in key states to fairly win the election.
I didn't vote for Trump and I'll be glad when he is out of office, but all these stories about Russia's influence are just sour grapes. Trump won because Clinton was a terrible candidate and income inequality along with a distrust of both parties are slowly disintegrating our democracy.
3
My initial thoughts:
1. Trump won Wisconsin by less than 30k votes.
2. Giving the government the ability to pick and choose what is fake can be a slippery slope.
3. Considering what I'm seeing on Fox news on the daily how in the heck can we hold social media companies to standards that our "news" organizations don't even meet.
4. To me this is still secondary to fighting voter suppression.
5. I'm so glad I'm not on facebook and gave up twitter after the election.
3
When we started to communicate anonymously, that's when things went downhill. The ability to post things, often horrible things, without being held responsible brought out the worst in us.
Yes, Facebook is not as guilty as many new outlets for the publication of people's worst, without consequence, without transparency.
People hide behind the internet, which is why I use my name and location in my posts. I am responsible for them, proud of them, and acknowledge them. The failures ans successes of my posts are mine. The mindset - liberal - and old hippy I publicly acknowledge.
But when people can say anything they want, without being identified, you are asking for trouble. The graffiti of the published world.
89
I admire your courage and integrity.
2
Authoritarianism is in part a reactionary pendulum swing in response to a perceived lack of consequences, boundaries, and control over anything
Anonymity doesn’t bring out the worst in us...just the truth.
Very good article. I also recommend the related article in today's online NYT, "How to fix Facebook, We asked 9 Experts" which discusses how to fix fake news on Facebook, etc. I want to add to the list of reforms there, possibly passing a law, making these social media sites financially liable for damages for allowing fake news. After reading these two good articles, I imagine and hope that my heroine, Hillary Clinton, will sue the pants off of Facebook and Google and Twitter. And if she is above that, maybe someone like me will write a fictional play about her doing it anyway.
1
This attack against Trump exposes the fingerprints of a very psychologically manipulative propaganda campaign to destroy a presidency which was created with planned obsolescence in mind, an expiration date if you would. There are so many anomalies and logical fallacies in this entire narrative that is becomes comedic to anyone who has read and studied a few hundred good books.
1
There is no doubt, given how close it was, that Trump was elected by the help of the Russians. Abetting or not, he is in the White House because Putin wanted him to be.
I think both Facebook and Twitter are dangerous sites - Facebook is a lot worse than Twitter. I think the government needs to really overhaul Facebook - its current management is incapable of cleaning up the mess.
2
I received a response to a Facebook political posting prior to the election from someone who said the most absurd things. When I asked her where she got her information she provided links to all the articles. They were obviously propaganda and fake news (argh hate to use that terminology) like. “Hillary Clinton’s Close to Deatth” type of articles that many of us would have discerned as fake but she and many others did not. I admit I was surprised at her gullibility and her insistence that these were accurate. I still am baffled that so many people were unable to tell the difference but then I was gobsmacked at the outcome of the election and the rampant racism and resentment in our country. I agree with a comment by Writer, “The best protection against propaganda is education and a curious, discerning mind. Now you know why Trump got 63 million votes“.
4
When will the land of "free speech" let the public see the ads?
1
While I don’t believe in censorship the current environment that one can say anything inflammatory, false and slanderous against another human being has gotten completely out of control.
Even certain news organizations have taken huge liberties in impugning their targets.
Currently we only have social norms that prevent this repugnant behavior. Maybe some strengthening of libel laws would at least prevent the most egregious and outrageous accusations and give the victims at least a venue to get some restitution.
Perhaps requiring Facebook to notify each every person that saw the injurious content would force the board of directors to take a closer look at what gets said and by whom.
I would love to see the owners of Comet Pizza get a huge settlement from the misaligned individuals who invented that bizarre tale and all the gossip mongers who helped spread it.
Wishful thinking I know
31
We do not live in the United States of Facebook.
1
So in what environment would you want censorship? Just wondering.
1
Out dear Leader, though, if chief exemplar of social norms. It seems that far too many people are taking their cues from him.
1
“Every day, I say to myself, ‘I don’t have much time here on Earth, how can I make the greatest positive impact?’ Some nights I go to bed and I’m not sure I made the right choices that day,” Mr. Zuckerberg said at the June conference. “I can tell you, those doubts don’t go away, no matter who you are. But every day you just get up and try to make the world a little better.”
“Better never means better for everyone... It always means worse, for some.” ― Margaret Atwood,
Isn’t the Times Editorials and op-eds nothing but propaganda? Just someone’s opinion printed or online in an attempt to discredit the current administration?
5
Editorials are offered opinions that one may find useful, others not so useful, however many people, in different countries consider Facebook a source of unbiased news, which may be false.
There is a difference between disinformation and opinion and the NY Times editorials are at least presented as honest opinion.
Lastly, the Times also offers different voices in their opinions – some of which are sympathetic to "the current administration".
Propaganda? You already believe 2+2=5 What's the point of reasoned discussion.
Once again we prove that social media is a vast wasteland of crap. I begin each of my college classes with a news story, sometimes business, sometimes hard news. It has become my mission in life to get students to read real news from a variety of sources and to critically assess what is being said.
Facebook started as simply a place to keep in touch with folks who lived far away. It has morphed into a bizarre means of letting people know when and where we eat and a bulletin board for every scintillating, false story we find on the Internet.
Grow up world, it is time to be adults.
9
Yes, Rich, apparently the first big money-maker for social media was pornography. The lowest common denominator always seem to be the first exploiters of something "new".
I put ad-blockers on my browser and subscribe only to people I want to know.
Facebook is not a source news for me. Unfortunately, others are just plain gullible and are suckers and that is the problem.
Come on, NYT....
Didn't you hear? It's no longer "Facebook"
The new is "Pravda"
3
Facebook (and other similar social media sights) = ignorance & ineptitude.
Read a book, read the New York Times, call anyone and have a real conversation, engage with life.
As opposed to looking at social media sights like facebook which are there to waste your time, sell you crap you do not need, collect as much personal data about its users and then sell the data to advertisers.
3
shut these idiotic sites down pronto.What good do they do??Mess with our democracy,cause car accidents i.e. death,encourage bullying,cause ED from porno sites,encourage division and hate speak and voyeurism and social discourse.Everyone would be better off w/o these obnoxious sites.
3
So the election was 'influenced' by 'dirt' on a candidate and ads bought on facebook. Are americans that stupid? If this counts as meddling it's laughable
3
What is amazing is how much Republicans are in denial of the obvious truth, to Russia and ex-KGB officers like Putin the cold war never ended, and the ultimate goal of sowing discord in the US is the collapse of the union, something the Republicans are charging towards with blind enthusiasm, embracing the worst divisions and discrediting our Democratic Republican institutions almost to the breaking point. Yes the Russians also manipulated extremist opinions on the left, but these always stayed fringe, in the Republican party these are now the establishment.
Murdoch's empire, Fox News and all the alt-right media blowhards are the worst offenders and biggest morons, falling hook line and sinker for this Russian con game.
2
How about temporarily shutting down Twitter, Facebook, et. al., until they fix their firewalls and protections and actually have enough people to enforce their own terms of service? I mean, they transmit information the way the U.S. Post Office does, only way faster, but you can't send certain things in the mail because it is against the law. Here they are the conduit to a national security threat. How are they not held accountable?
5
For a very long time Oceans has been that physical barrier that have protected us; as the "blind man" who develop alternative skills to overcame his handicap America has developed better than all countries abilities to overcome its physical isolation by developing all sort of techs to project power and influence policies on lands very far away from the continental US better than any other nation on this Earth; our intelligences services were expert at this and mostly our country's deep pocket is the primary reason why we were so successful; Now, with the internet and social media that edge has melted; all adversaries intelligence services that couldn't afford to do so in the past can now very easily via simple posts on social medias they can reach and influence an American living in Idaho instantly...they don't need a network of very expensive news and medias infrastructure to do the work, they can just use social media....the world has democratize....I believe that trying to shut down, block, or any sort of that sort will just backfire on us with America always claiming riding the high moral grounds coupled with the "Democratic" image that the US always try to portray, the only way is just being smart on how to lead the communication war...that's the new world reality...complaining about Russians doesn't help just play them at their own game...
Why people still have Facebook accounts is mind boggling.
4
Apparently it's too dangerous to take personal responsibility for opinions. All day long our phone rings with people trying to scam us. We don't answer anymore. Using the internet feels like getting through a scary neighborhood. I know that people are used to this like slow-boiled frogs, that it isn't just fancy philosophers who don't believe in reality anymore. But how long do you think "Have a wonderful day" is going to keep us playing nice?
When I was a boy the old people, who'd been through world wars and a huge depression, would say that they only regretted that they wouldn't be around to see all the wonderful new inventions and social progress. Old people now most often confide amongst themselves that they're glad they won't be around to see the material consequences of the current loss of trust in everything.
1
And so, what if we had American born Russians take out the ads? Would that be okay? What if American born Russians formed a super pack and donated lots of money to which ever candidate was willing to have better relations with Russia and be helpful to Russia? Is that okay? Is that still not another country influencing our elections? Can you think of any other country that does this exact thing right now????
2
If people are that gullible to to be influenced one way or another by political advertising then they are unable to think for themselves. That's the problem, people unable to think for themselves. We knew all about HRC from the 1990s, we knew what she was about, we knew that we did not want her to be president. Others did, why in the world, I don't know, but they did. We also knew about the other Republican candidates, we had heard their same old lies over and over, we knew we did not one of them to be president. We selected Donald Trump because was he was genuine, he was the real deal. We did not need phony baloney ads on Facebook to convince us of that. This whole thing on Russian influence is baloney and just a subterfuge to prevent President Trump from doing the job Americans elected him to do, which is to put America back at the front of the line, to make America great again, and bring down the failed legacy of the past. I support the President. I support Trump. I support America. Thank you.
4
Unclear from the article: How much of this stuff was pro-Trump? Certainly not all of it. Remember that we now know much of it was also aimed at stirring up anti-police protests, or backing candidates like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. The Russians, it seems, wanted to stir up dissent and division throughout US society, and getting Trump elected may have just been a bonus.
BTW, also note that most of the stuff described in this article wasn't paid advertising, on which the Russians spent trivial amounts. Most of it was free online postings, generated by Russian troll farms. Apparently they did a whole lot of work--far more than I'd realized.
The scary thing is that if an American SuperPAC did all of this, it would be totally okay.
4
When my Operations Security (OpSec) Chief, a fine upstanding Republican with a brain, said that he was voting for Hillary because he knew the Trump team had been compromised by foreign influences that were part of the Trump playbook, I was genuinely shocked (and amused).
Note to self: Don't entrust sensitive information with half the US populace, they can't distinguish truth over fictional bias due to intellectual laziness. Putin figured out that a large swath of the US populace are spoon-fed morons (TV, FB, and AM radio) and easily manipulated. Those folks will never admit it though, they also lack emotional intelligence. Seems about 40M Americans are intellectually malleable in the easiest way..
1
And just who do we have to blame; Those who would fool us, or the fools among us?
I am constantly amazed by the people who will buy any weird item that appears on the internet - like Hillary's child sex slavery operation at a pizza parlor. Really, taken seriously enough that a man went there and fired a rifle.
The nonsense that people buy into. Have they no intellect, no education, no common sense which by definition must be informed by information - not alternative facts?
The war on liberal education - the value of it - is taking a toll. A liberal arts education exposes you to literature, and philosophy, and sociology and psychology and logic that combats the willingness to buy into anything you hear on Facebook or Twitter
It gives you the weapons - curiosity, skepticism, knowledge of the world, and the people in it - the history and knowledge necessary to combat the ignorance - the willful ignorance of people like Trump and his minions.
The disrespect for education, the gaining of knowledge passed down and discovered by our teachers - the leg up they give us so we don't have to reinvent the wheel - is a bad thing. Bad for our future as a nation, and bad for every individual that makes up our nation.
Cultures far preceding us valued education - the learning of things - that the current President and GOP disdain. Amazing and sad.
We are reaping the results.
6
Gosh, and I thought Fox News was the main media outlet responsible for destroying our Democracy.
3
Is it too much to ask of the NYT to provide actual examples of “divisive” content?
8
It seems that Russian skills to communicate in English is quite a bit higher than American Voters IQ.
8
Kate says, "If you were influenced by a few ads on Facebook into voting for Trump, you were already beyond help. It's pathetic that THIS is the alleged "hacking the election." Hillary had a 1.2 BILLION campaign and nonstop media fawning. And still lost.'
Kate, facebook helped the Con Don's campaign place separate ads for one person to push their hate-anger-fear buttons. Hate-anger-fear is all the "conservatives" have and facebook helped them figure out how to find and target those specific people. It is much more sinister than just them helping Russia spread hate-anger-fear to help destroy OUR government.
They use psychological models most of us haven't even heard of and target individuals with "algorithms". If that doesn't scare people into demanding strict regulation to protect OUR privacy I don't know what will.
Perhaps when someone like Steve Bannon figures out how to hack and steal every dime from OUR U.S. taxpayer funded treasury? Or destroy OUR electric grid?
Time for average people to wake up and take action to protect ourselves and OUR United States of America from those inside and outside who would destroy it for profit and power.
3
Let's hope that the Americans will have the last laugh. Putin may have succeeded in bringing Trump to the White House, but the American institutions are resilient enough to put up with the mayhem the current administration creates without plunging into dysfunction and turmoil. Moreover the constitutional straitjacket confines Trump's choice of action - like the lifting of sanctions etc, so that he no longer can be at Putin's bidding. Yes, Trump had won, but it could well be a Pyrrhic victory.
3
This is the same "Don't Worry, Be Happy" attitude that prevailed during the '30's in Austria and Germany. The US electoral system is badly distorted by dark money and massive voter suppression. Complacency is not the answer.
1
Another article in today's New York Times has experts suggesting how to "fix" facebook. The article says, "Mark Zuckerberg has said that Facebook’s goals are “bringing us closer together” and “building a global community.”
Hogwash. All major social media is owned by Wall Street and other markets and their only goal is to manipulate us into giving up personal information to use it to make money.
Mark Zuckerberg also said that every person's information would be private when he first started facebook. He, like The Con Don and their brethren money masters who got The Con Don elected - with ads targeted to specific people, hitting their personal hate-anger-fear buttons - is a liar.
There is one way to clean up all social media. Make PUSH technology illegal. People must be able to decide exactly what THEY want coming into their computers, phones, televisions and and other information gathering/listening devices that THEY pay for and own. Now Wall Street Robber Barons are touting "smart" homes where everything thinks for one and tracks every move.
NO. NO. NO. So-called "smart" chips are only smart for those trying to manipulate and control us. If they are allowed there must be a simple, clear way for them to be disabled for those of us who still value OUR privacy.
8
If you are subject to "control" that's a result of your education and your practices. I don't use Facebook except to have an account so that I can log on to various sites. Why would I read Facebook? And if I did, it could not possibly in a lifetime "control" me.
It may be difficult, and even "mysterious," but Congress had better figure this out, if they know what's good for them, and us.
4
American politicians might as well use some of them for future elections since who watches TV anymore? Just make social media for everyone so American governments can also influence other countries or do we already do that? If we spent some time on online ads instead of full military all over the world, we can probably afford that tax cuts for the rich. And these tech companies, like any big companies, really are controlled by the rich of the world, not just the American 1%. And the government officials don't always have the public's best interest anyways, so I don't really think these tech companies or Russian agents did anything that bad. They were smart to make money from it or influence foreign elections using it. Maybe America seems more divided because of that elections but it's not like there are perfect countries in the world, and we're still much stronger than Russia. As long we have media platforms accessible by many people, there will be some that abuse the system for their own advantage. Russians influence on elections isn't that different than teenagers trying to get the most likes or followers on social media for their own ego. Smart people will use paid services to get their info and give content, not free gossip sites. It's really up to each individuals to decide how to use these services.
So, 126 million Americans received deliberate political "disinformation" via Facebook from a hostile foreign power designed specifically to hijack our presidential election.
According to many reports from established, "fact-based" media over the last year, Americans believed these "fake news" plants more often than they did "real" news stories from CNN, NBC, the Times, the WaPo and other "mainstream media".
What this tells me is that Americans cannot be trusted to differentiate between "real" and "fake" news - especially when it comes spoon-fed to them via Facebook algorithms designed to cater to their most subconscious biases - all in the name of increasing ad revenues.
This leaves me with only one conclusion. We need to find a way to clearly segregate "legitimate" news outlets from the "aggregators" like Facebook - who make no pretense at being "journalists" - while also making no bones about the fact that "grabbing eyeballs" is all they care about.
But recent surveys show that almost two-thirds of Americans rely largely or exclusively on "social media" as their primary news source. In short, most Americans now get their news from the sewer.
I realize there are First Amendment issues - but I believe we need to seriously explore the prohibition of the re-transmission of any "news" on social media.
Facebook (and other social media) are children's toys - good only for juvenile hallway gossip and trading recipes. We desperately need to rescue the "news" from the sewer.
5
What's next in this inane commentary by the Times, that a glorified infomercial
dictated the outcome of the elections? If you give creedsnce to this argument then you validate the belief in stereotypeing voters as dumb Americans.
The liberal left elitist believe that not all Americans are entitled to vote merely because they don't share their view of how the country should be run.
1
i have been the recipient of postings that have been passed on to me that were inspired by the Russians disinformation campaign certainly.
I have been told, by my mother in law, that Barack Obama named Jane Fonda the Woman of the Century, and that Barbara Walters was incensed.
Knowing, because I keep myself informed, that Walters was a friend of Fonda, I was skeptical, I did my research.
I found out this was an old lie, recycled every decade or so. There is no "Woman of the Century" award, and that being true, the rest of it falls apart. Jane Fonda - the one still hated by the right for her youthful indiscretions - for which she has apologized - was not named by Obama - the black President they also, and viscerally hate.
When I got back to her and revealed my research - which she did not expect -she demurred - took the Trump route- and said that she had been forwarded this information by someone she thought was credible. As though that absolved her of any responsibility of the e-mail I had received from her.
This particular lie has been revealed as a Russian inspired misinformation campaign - bought hook, line and sinker by a white, Republican, ultra conservative, religious American woman - and passed on without question - until confronted.
Multiply this story by thousands. Still think Russia had no effect on our elections or society?
15
The United States made a major mistake when it supported the Ukraine revolution/coup. Elections were due to be held, and the Russian-backed candidate was likely going to lose them. All we had to do was impress upon the pro-EU Ukrainians to wait three months so that they could come to power legitimately. Instead, they couldn't wait, and the street overthrew the government by force. That gave Russia the pretext to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and to begin the attempts to influence the US election.
Curious how much attention is being paid to the Russian attempts to influence the election, and how little attention has been paid to James Comey's attempt to influence the election. Or have you all forgotten that little charade of his?
5
Bingo!
Imagine what our democracy would look like if the media spent even half as much time on corporate attempts to control our government as it does on ‘Russian meddling’. The Russian meddling is still a likely red herring ($100,000, some of which as spent on anti-Trump ads? Really?), whereas the corporate control of the US government is very real and poses an deadly threat to what little democracy if left in America today.
Yet, pick up any major newspaper in the US and you’re unlikely to hear about this. I wonder why....
9
You might enjoy reading "Thieves of State" by Sarah Chayes, "Why corruption threatens global security" is her theme. Many Kleptocracies mentioned, the most terrifying one, the USA, is in the very last chapter. After reading/listening to the book in Audible I wondered how she is still alive. She unmasks from personal, professional, political, diplomatic experience, with precise detail, names, etc. It is scary for us citizens to live in a bubble, unawares of the magnitude of the deceit she describes. Interesting window to a world almost completely beyond our reach.
1
As Judge Judy says- if it doesn't make sense - it isn't true.
Can people not use their common sense - if not their educated minds (rare these days, admittedly) to separate the true from the propagandized and ridiculous. Really? That Hillary Clinton was running a child pornography and slavery ring from a pizza parlor? Bought it enough to go there and shoot off a rifle? No warning that this might not be true, just because it appeared in social media?
We are in deep trouble, people. I taught "at risk" kids in high school for 5 years at the end of my professional life. They didn't know that we dropped the bomb - twice - on civilian populations - the most dangerous and predatory civilization the earth as ever known - us. They knew nothing about American or worlds history- not the Vietnam War, its causes and outcome, let alone the two World Wars.
They have no clue about money - their own, let alone the economy of a world power - trade or budget or economic policy.
The kids I taught were not the ones headed to elite schools they will always be OK. But they are the ones headed to live in this world, in our society and not vote - or - more scary - vote.
They are Trump's base - the basket, the uninformed and couldn't care less that they aren't, the intellectually lazy that love to criticize "intellectuals".
Being and staying informed is hard work. It appears most Americans are not up to it.
13
Have you watched Fox News lately? Russia is in the minor leagues compared to Rupert Murdoch. Too bad we don't have the Fairness doctrine anymore.
18
The total spent on the Russian ads was $100,000. Hilary Clinton spent $44 million in advertising trashing Donald Trump on social media. Furthermore the Russian ads promoted left wing (LGBTQ) and right wing (gun rights) groups alike. So exactly how was this "an attack in our democracy"? Silly.
9
ALL ads are propaganda. Whether it's an ad for beer, laundry detergent, a political candidate or a social cause. Americans are consummate consumers of advertising and are capable of discerning an advertisement from a statement of fact. If we weren't we'd buy anything that was advertised to us.
What we're less capable of doing, however, is discerning the truth when news media publish stories that may reflect either a liberal (New York Times, CNN) or conservative (FOX) bias. The co-opting of the news media for political purposes during this election is much more dangerous to America than a few phony ads on Facebook.
8
Even though the following url pertains to middle school students, it is still indicative of what may come when they can vote a few years later. https://www.sciencealert.com/bad-news-study-finds-80-of-students-can-t-t...
If I understand the article, by spending 100 000 dollars with Facebook and 50 000 with Google, the Russians managed to anihilate the effect of the hundreds of million spent by the Clinton campaign.
Surely that shows spectacular incompetence on behalf of the Clinton camp so it must be lucky they did not win.
11
We should be just as concerned about the nonsense propaganda that right-wing Americans constantly cook up themselves and circulate on social media as we are about Russian posts and ads. Anybody who has a crazy right-wing relative knows what I'm talking about. The birther conspiracy and the lunacy about Benghazi didn't come from Russia, nor did the Clinton impeachment. For years, the American right wing has rarely engaged in honest argument and has relied on propaganda instead. This is probably why the current iteration of Republicanism seems to like Putin so much; he is as much a dangerously conservative nationalist as he is anything else.
19
Americans will learn the hard way why the good old days of "newsprint" and smudged fingers really were the good old days. Rarely do I even hear the word journalism uttered any more. When you wreck everything in sight in the name of convenience and competition, you prostitute yourself. With it goes everything that delivers truth and dignity. Betty White said ti best when she learned of Facebook: "What a waste of time."
9
BlamingAmericas problems on Russia? America is divided, has been divided, between urban and rural, black, white, red, brown and yellow, rich and poor, for decades, the war between myth and reality continues---The USA is collapsing, bread and circuses, drugs, war to keep Empire alive,nobody will miss your Empire of Kitsch.
4
So these "Russian" ads, a fraction of less than one percent during the period covered, dealt with "race, religion, gun violence and LGBT" ( according to linked articles) and these topics, which no true American would ever touch on presumably, confirm Russian interference in the election and a threat to our democracy. This is insanity pure and simple.
9
If their intent was not to sway the election on behalf of Trump in every way possible, the same Trump that is their bought-and-paid-for stooge, then what were they trying to do?
1
Trump colluded with the Russians and they now have their own agent in the White House. Putin bought Trump with financial support with millions and millions of laundered money ..no other banks would touch Trump after his multiple business failures. Most disgusting is the complicit Republican Party acceptance of Russian aid in electing Trump. They are all traitors.
7
Proof? Trumpis Trumps agent, hes owned by noone except himself, the Russians cant be evil and dumb at the same time. You need to accept the Dems put up a scary, unelectable woman----perhaps the entire thing is orchestrated by the US Intel agencies? Make people who thought Trump had sane ideas on Russia---he did---meaning sane ideas regarding our futurelivability, meaning no nuclear war, people voted for him, some based on this issue and now? Now, hes the mirror image of Clinton. Perhaps it was the plan all along..."no matter who you vote for, we will control them, we will sic them on Russia , we will increase our almost 900 military bases on earth, surrounding Russia, overthrowing governments close to them, and we will drool with delight as the liberals of America become just as dumb as the conservatives. The real meaning? Democracy is kaput, cannot be fixed. Prepare for war.Left, right, middle...prepare to die by the millions because you have been lied to.....the enemy isnt in Moscow, it sits in shadows controlling DC.
To say that the enemy sits in the shadows controlling Washington DC is accurate- even if they profited from Russian assistance designed to serve Russian interests. These are the corporate fascists who have corrupted the entire electoral process on behalf of the so-called Republican Party. To say Clinton and Trump are mirror images is to display a complete disconnect with the reality that Trump is an ignorant mentally ill narcissist who surrounded himself with Russian operatives. Follow the money and connect the dots. Trump is owned and controlled by financial interests coming straight out of Russia.
1
"Multiple investigations of Russian meddling have loomed over the first 10 months of the Trump presidency, with one leading to the indictments of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chief,.."
Except that Manafort's indictment is for tax dodging during the period when he was not working for Trump and neither says nor implies any connection to "Russian meddling" or even any connection to the Russians.
6
Perhaps when translated into German that's how it reads. But here in America we translate things to say what we want them to say. That's the beauty of American English . . . 200 words for the same thing all depending on which direction you want to bend something. If believe lawyers and politicians are taught it beginning in Rhetoric101.
It is clear now that Facebook was complicit in the election of Donald J Trump to POTUS. Their ads, bought and paid for by Russian operatives, clearly made the difference. Zuckerberg should resign immediately and give the world an apology.
6
Ah Steve, that should make the mainstream media and our government very happy. Then they will really be able to control the message and the competition.
1
Maybe the leaders of Facebook and the other social media that took the Russian money but didn't publicly announce the postings as paid political ads by a foreign government should be indicted by Special Counsel Mueller for collusion.
Have they found one single person who said this stuff actually influenced their vote?
11
The result is lurking in OUR white house, Michael. How much proof do you need?
4
Mike your kidding, right? You do understand the idea of treason, don't you?
njglea, If Democrats don't learn why a populist like Trump will beat a corporatist like Clinton every time, they may never win another election.
1
For sure this platform can be used nefariously for disseminating fake news. But so is the internet in general. What saves us generally from outlandish statements is education. Knowing the likes of: that the earth is not flat, there are no people "supreme" to others, and the earth was not created in 6 days, keeps only ignorant people entertained and able to be influenced. So, ultimately the best inoculation against unwanted, stupid, fake news, is education. In the meantime, we can only hope the prophylactics have minimal failures.
68
Donald Trump claims to be very smart and intelligent and Ivy League well educated. An education does not bring wisdom nor morals nor logic. The purpose of education is limiting you ignorance by curiosity. I don't know is the beginning of wisdom. Ignorance is not knowing that 2+2=4. Stupid is knowing it equals five.
2
Now that the coverage is optional for those prophylactics . . .
Blackmamba – Spending a number of years on the campus of (for example) the University of Pennsylvania will not result in "education" for a person who lacks a curious mind. Conversely, a person WITH a curious mind is pretty much guaranteed to become educated whether in or outside of the academy. (The structure and guidance provided by college does help though.) Here we have an essential difference between, if I may, 44 and 45.
I believe that education does enable a person to develop a moral framework.
Logic, I think, is a skill. It's essential both as part of the process of education and in real-life situations where a person has to evaluate claims that are outside of daily experience (such as when confronted by a Facebook "news" item asserting, say, that Hillary Clinton trafficked in human babies).
I don't know what wisdom is.
I'd hazard a guess that the mainstream media impacted far more actual voters than social media did. Still both platforms apparently failed to sway the majority of voters who are fed-up with “business as usual” from the “usual suspects” (professional politicians). All of this has the appearance of “poor losers crying in their beer.”
5
@Seadob
You "hazard a guess" ? as you spear reputable news companies rather than admit the right wing trolls *provably* fed you disinformation?
That's right up there whit starting a statement with "I Bet You Likely...."
You have ZERO proof of your claim, sir.
None.
An "opinion" is not now, and never will be a FACT.
1
I guess we should be grateful that only half of those 126 million were duped into voting for a willfully ignorant con man. Collusion or no, it’s becoming pretty clear we have a Russian Manchurian candidate as president.
8
When will there be a serious look at the disinformation spread day in and day out by the Murdoch’s propaganda mill?
20
Yesterday all 3 Murdoch platforms called for the special prosecutor to resign.
NY Post
Fox News
WSJ
He should have been stripped of his citizenship and deported a long time ago.
All these companies should only be allowed to include postings in their news feeds that are actually news, that come from recognized reputable news sources. I don't understand why they are allowed to include junk in their news feeds.
And nobody is going to look up in some database to see where an ad comes from. If an ad comes from or is linked to any foreign source and is political or divisive, it should be rejected. Simple. These companies have to stop stop stop offering up feeble work-arounds. Do the right thing, guys, and stop making excuses. Otherwise, the country will just start to see as a tool for nefarious purposes.
Oh dear. oh dear, oh dear, you poor Americans. It's just terrible what those awful Russkies have done to you. Why not try to regain your composure -- and your very sanity -- by spending all day reflecting upon what terrible things you have done to the Russkies over time (cf. the Yeltsin epoch!). That should redress things, restore the balance, and reinstate the paranoid style as a veritable cognitive asset.
5
I always thought it was a horrible idea to humiliate Russia on the world stage by stripping them of their prior glory.
Ah, the "Yelsin Epoch"? You mean the brief transition period where the utter hollowness of soviet institutions was laid bare and this just happened to coincide with historically low oil prices? Spare us the transparently pathetic and self-serving putinist Dolchstosslegende, please. The reality is that during the 1990s the USA gave russia every possible unearned credit imaginable - everything from cash injections far out or proportion to what it gave to more deserving new state soviet "satellite" ex-colonies, gave russia utterly undeserved seats on various international bodies, and even threw money at russia in totally wasteful ways like keeping its aerospace industry going by welfare for its space program and even SST aircraft. And all the while, there were zero calls - zero - for the prosecution of crimes by moscow-based soviets for crimes of the soviet era.
So please, spare us the putinist revisionism. It's as transparent as it is historically and ethically bankrupt.
Tell it to the Armenians.
At some point we need to address the issue of media literacy. I am more concerned that so many people easily believe what they read on the internet that may (or may not) be "fake".
One thing is for sure, just about everything on the internet is there to sell you something, or to get info to make it easier to sell you something (or believe something). The idea that some significant percentage of the 129 million people that read this garbage on the internet actually believed it, (or were somehow swayed to believe something that was not true) without some type of rigorous vetting of the quality of the information, is really quite frightening.
And how are we to feel about relying on someone at Facebook, or Google to somehow filter out fake news? Really?
Remember Facebook's goal, and purpose is to increase shareholder value. Not to somehow be arbiter of the veracity of the information it promulgates. If they were really smart, Facebook would simply charge more for news and stuff they deem as fake and let their subscribers sort it all out.
15
Is this a joke NYT?
There was that Victoria Nuland, the Obama Admin's Asst. Secretary of State openly spending $5 million in Ukraine to foment opposition groups into violence and overthrow the elected Viktor Yanukovych's government and install the US puppet Poroshenko. John McCain openly sided with the neo-nazi thugs in Ukraine against the elected government.
Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geffory Pyatt discussed (in leaked conversation) on who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych's ouster and even using filthy language against the EU (as reported by the Washington Post).
So far, the US has been involved in overthrowing elected governments in dozens of countries around the world.
You are now trying to hoodwink the public into suggesting that Russian influence is to blame?
Didn't the DNC made that fateful decision to field a highly disliked candidate in Hillary Clinton and lost the election?
Will there ever be a time that NYT and MSM might actually do investigative journalism into the REAL Clinton foundation scandals such as the Uranium deals in Russia? I think not!
11
I am on Facebook all the time, but I never read the news feed. So it had no influence on me. And if we could go back in time two years, and start the timeline over with no Russian presence on Facebook, Hillary still would have lost the election.
4
I agree. People hated Hillary from the start. The Democrats never had the courage to stop her from running and there was a sense that somehow she was entitled to the nomination.
1
The man who was in charge of the Trump campaign's digital operations was featured on "60 Minutes" a few weeks ago and he was downright scary. What annoyed me about him the most was how he boasted about inflating "infrastructure" as an issue to draw potential Trump voters in. He didn't seem disturbed at all that Trump has barely mentioned infrastructure since he has actually been President.
9
I love how everyone knows all about the Russian Internet Research Agency (the source of so much of the fake, divisive internet posts), and even its street address and all, and yet nobody has done anything about it. We are constantly told that we have the world's greatest cyber-weapons, and yet we've been basically cyber-nuked, yet we don't have the courage to respond.
3
Of course, it would be insane, un-American, deriding of the 'savvy' of the American voter, brilliantly educated and skepical as they are, to ever believe that eighty-thousand or so could be swayed by merely 126 million twitter feeds undercutting Mrs. Clinton's candidacy or fomenting divisions between political partisans.
Why, pishaw! How presumptuous. Why, those gentlemen in Congress and the White House wouldn't never foist such an obvious canard on us.
2
Russian attempts to intervene in our domestic politics through social media follow a pattern of foreign interventions by a range of countries, now allies or friendly, but once hostile to the United States. It is our loss that our media seldom reports on the other countries trying to influence our elections. No doubt that is because many of them have domestic constituents through cultural or religious ties. First and foremost would be Great Britain, considered a hostile power to the United States for most of the 19th century.
Today, however, the British government funded British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) has influence on Americans to an extent that the Russians can only envy. British nationals are prominent in our entertainment media, our journals of opinion, and news media. And that influence is dwarfed by our treaties of alliance, British cultural exchanges, and business trade. Not all Americans, of course, are happy about that British influence, since politicians (Nigel Farage?) are quite antagonistic to the interests of liberals, of Irish Americans, of African Americans, Hispanic and other racial minorities in the Democratic Party. But as the saying goes, our foreign policies reflect the policies of our wealthiest minorities.
1
The MSM never reports on US actions to influence other countries elections are how we overthrow government when we don't like the person elected. This is what we did in Ukraine. We have overthrown an elected leader and replaced him with our puppet, Poroshenko. Also don't forget that John McCain supported what we did and had no problem with US replacing leaders with US puppets.
Fact: a mortal enemy of America commits an act of war by forcibly injecting itself into a presidential campaign and, consequently, is totally responsible, repeat, totally responsible for putting its candidate in the W.H., denying the American people its true choice.
Now honestly, should we no break diplomatic relations with Valdemar Putin's Russia and tell the world what we think of those who do these most dastardly things?
2
Google needs to follow along Facebook and Twitter in their fight against Russian and other foreign interference. The laws that apply to TV should apply to the Internet as well in as far as advertising. Maybe FB, Google, and others need to tighten up their advertising.
Facebook is no longer a "social media" site, rather a "news" site, and disinformation as well. These companies need to take all of this into consideration. Or eventually when the democracy fails, they will turn into the RTs and Sputniks of the West... Just propaganda mouthpieces for the oligarchs and dictators.
We should all pause and ask ourselves if we really want the solutions proposed by so many liked comments to this article. Many of them are precisely the tools used by autocratic regimes to limit free speech and crack down on dissent.
We'd all be better served by expecting less from facebook (and google, and twitter) and more from ourselves. It's long past time we looked beyond our FB newsfeed, start scrutinizing where our information comes from, and reach out to multiple deliverers of original news content (preferably across the political spectrum).
16
the dumbing down of society has led to the proliferation of social media, or vice a versa.. they go hand in hand... people do not read books anymore, people do not attempt to learn.... its a sad state of affairs
As with health care, throwing money at education will not improve outcomes. My grandfathers had critical reading skills despite never getting past the eighth grade. Today we have college students who can't tell -- and don't seem interested in -- the difference among fact, fiction, and outright propaganda. Tech evolution in media is the main reason, so it's no surprise that bots can sell widgets and ideas. Complex problems require complex solutions. It is obvious, however, that learning old-fashioned respect for words, more than 140 characters at a time, lies at the heart of it all.
17
If by "throwing money", you mean building schools, training teachers, and equipping our future generations with the tools they need to think and judge properly, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Congratulations on your "grandfather's critical reading skills". There are many people who aren't apparent geniuses like your grandfather, who find it hard to learn in crumbling schools where the plumbing doesn't work properly. It also doesn't help to have a "President" who lies daily, in 140 characters.
How about disclosing who pays for all ads. I see no reason to limit disclosure to political ads.
11
I love that idea and hope it is done for all types of media. There is so much political garbage on Facebook how does anyone think a little more from Russia or anybody else will have any real effect? It’s a drop of water in the ocean.
I find it surprising that it's possible to put political advertising on internet media, without naming the source of it. Maybe it's time to control these media more.
8
Modern day arms merchants. You sell your wares to whoever who has the dough
6
This is why Donald Trump is so dangerous, even if neither he nor any members of his inner circle colluded with Russia. By fostering and continually promoting the idea of "fake news" Mr. Trump makes it less and less likely that vast swaths of the American public will ever learn to be discerning about what they read. We are being driven into opinion corners where 'real' news is that which reflects our opinions and "fake news" is anything with which we disagree. That makes the American public very gullible and very susceptible to any campaign of misinformation. In short, the current POTUS is doing a great job prepping this country for Russia (and any other enemy).
This issue in identifying the 'real' people behind ads is a difficult one in that we already have plenty of legit places for people to hide. When I hear or read that a political ad is paid for by "The Team for a Better America," if it is a registered PAC or 501(c)(3), I have no idea what-so-ever whose money is behind it. What's to prevent Russia or any other country from setting up such groups, through sympathetic individuals, and running ads to influence an election or simply stir the pot?
142
It is time that the 501s, in every case, have to disclose in bold print the names of the humans who run them. No more endless running of those ads without full disclosure.
31
As you know it is illegal for foreign countries to contribute to campaigns and such influence peddling would be illegal. However, as you say, how would you be able to insure where the money came from. If Manafort can channel money from overseas to use for his personal gain then how would we ever be able to insure that foreign governments couldn't do the same through a sympathetic PAC. Maybe we should get rid of PAC's all together. Oops, didn't the Supreme Court say that anyone can donate as much as they want to anyone else's campaign as a measure of "free speech"? Who'd a thunk it? Do you think it? Do you think the framers of the Constitution were worried about PAC's or contributions to campaigns. The only thing they were worried about was making sure that church and state didn't interact.
That collusion with Russia is already established fact seems to somehow have escaped some people.
All advertising should be reviewed and approved by humans. We're a long way off before we can trust computers to perform this task.
17
The Russian disinformation campaign is what FAKE NEWS really is. And millions of the ignorant Clown base bought into the falsehoods. Millions would rather disbelieve their lying eyes and ears than see the Clown and his Republican minions for what they really are. That's because millions of Americans do not have the ability to understand that Facebook and the Internet in general consist of false information.
.
So congratulations, you were hoodwinked by the Russkies. We're all so very proud.
.
Better get back to your phone. The Russians are posting more fake news on FB about your Clown.
16
The best defense against any Russian disinformation campaign is a good education, a critically thinking mind, an open mind, an active interest in what is going on in the world - and the effort it takes to bring in information from multiple sources. can the American public do that?
I am increasingly skeptical that we can. We are too anti-intellectual, too intellectually lazy, to expect people to actively react to stories they are told. To do their own research. To care enough about knowing the truth that they will put energy into finding out. That they will not just sit at the screen and say, yah - and pass it on.
What to do? How do you make people get common sense, or intellectual curiosity, or the self discipline to do the work to be an informed person? To expend the energy necessary to know the facts - not the alternative ones.
45
I don't think the American people can anymore.
The level of education, general culture, historical and geographical awareness is astonishingly low in US public schools and even universities.
A country needs to invest in education in order to ensure it's prosperous future. I've seen this coming in the US for 20 years, as I was able to leave the US as a teenager and experience what education was like in Europe.
41
This may seem Pollyanish, but I believe we can fight this scourge by being scrupulously civil with each other online and calling out those who are not, especially when they're our friends. To avoid spreading propaganda, we must become circumspect about re-posting news stories or memes without first checking their origins, and to recognize when we are being trolled or provoked. A strong-enough community should be immune to these nefarious foreign attempts to divide us.
4
Last week, apologists were busy saying that spending a few hundred thousand dollars could hardly be expected to reach anyone, much less influence them.
That argument no longer holds up. Now among the comments you'll see plenty of people instead saying that merely reaching 126 million people can't be expected to influence anyone, no one listens to social media anyway. Nonsense. Any corporation would be thrilled to have their own ad campaigns achieve that kind of penetration.
And this assumes we've identified the entire campaign. With posts through myriad anonymous and pseudonymous accounts, that's highly unlikely.
25
Reached 126 million is one thing. How many actually read and clicked on it is a different story. There is an obvious add fatigue in anyone spending that much time on Facebook. I wonder what is the click and bait rate for those ads. It would be nice if Facebook knew it or did an about face after it figured it out.
2
When elections are so tight and close (not just in PA, WI and MI, but also in states like Florida), a few clicks is all that matters... Especially when that message is carried on to their every day lives, whether it be at church, social events, or among family. Facts should move elections, not ads.
1
An ad repeated often enough, where the main message does not require one to click on it to see it, has subliminal power. Matter of fact, repeat a lie often enough and it will be come the truth, a tried and true Republican strategy was used to great effect by Joseph Goebbels.
I did some brainstorming on this in my personal blog and hope maybe there could be a better social platform that could be engineered. A Wikipedia/Facebook ranking hybrid platform. Would love for Twitter and Facebook to take heed.
http://randodynamo.blogspot.com/2017/10/providing-context-and-sanity-to....
1
To quote Obi Wan - "The Force can have a strong effect on the weak minded".
Facebook political ads and political posts/content are mindless dribble that fall into the same category as fake news. If you're dumb enough to listen to any of it and it influences your vote, you're an idiot. Russia did this to destabilize our political system, so if you got mad and ran out to protest something - Russia got you & you're dumb.
Is Facebook going to give all the money they earned for these ads to the government? Otherwise, they are guilty of conspiracy against the United States right? They took money in exchange for providing a platform for a foreign government to influence low information voters. Their defense?
Whoops - we didn't know they could use our social media to influence voters....sorry, we'll fix that in the next release.
Russia learned that social media is the perfect tool for influencing the weak minded. Watch some dumb cat videos and then we'll throw in an ad that makes you angry and you can go protest and burn stuff and destabilize the system.
So what now? Congress will spend millions to investigate and then determine we need to try to stop this from happening. Guess what - you can't. Only way to stop it is to either A) Create a more intelligent United States voter (which isn't going to happen, or B) You follow China's example and monitor the internet and block all outside influence.
No way to fix it, so don't worry, just smile and just keep watching fail videos.
49
Thanks for confirming my failure to get on F-book and Twitter. Don't click on ads. I look for specific things on Google & reject out of hand anything that does not get me where I want to go. Maybe I'm a Luddite. These days that looks like a good thing.
80
In terms of Russia 'levering open divisions in the US', it seems like they have opened Pandora's box. It feels like it's possible that we, as a country, may never recover from this... the differences among us that the Russians have exploited.
12
Facebook needs to get out of the news business. They've allowed their platform to be used by aggressive foreign agents hellbent on destroying America. At first, Ms. Sandberg blew the whole thing off. Now, we find out that 126 million Americans received "fake news" from hostile Russian agents. That alone should forever bar Facebook from publishing any type of news from any outside source.
43
Russians could hardly keep from bragging about this activity. In the 2016 Moscow meeting that retired General Flynn had gone as a guest of the Russian government, Russian officials were gushing that their ability to use social media against the West was as important to Russian power as when they had developed the atomic bomb
15
More specifically, the Russians have been able to identify the fault lines in Western countries and to use social media to exploit them. It doesn't need to be Russia against the West, when it can be the West against the West.
2
It is both tragic and comic. We are so worried about Trump’s campaign colluding with the Russians, while Facebook was making money from the Russian. Comic. And tragic.
15
Nonsense. The Presidental election was written in with or without anything Russia or anyone else did. Nobody changed their vote or changed their mind. Nobody was sitting on the fence. Hillary supporters were Hillary supporters, and Trump supporters were Trump supporters. And moving heaven and earth wouldn't have persuaded any of them to vote otherwise. No scandal, no leaked email, no recorded statement and no Russian Facebook skullduggery would have purged votes from one candidate or the other. So just knock off the excuses and get on with it.
22
"Nobody changed their vote or changed their mind." It's interesting that you would even claim to know such a thing. Which of course you don't.
.
But you don't know that you don't know it, and that makes you dangerously ignorant.
.
"Nobody was sitting on the fence." Many, many people were sitting on the fence. It happens in every election and in every poll. Many people don't decide who they'll vote for until they get in the voting booth. But don't let any of that get in the way of your thinking. The Russkies are counting on you.
89
Please. Hillary entered the campaign with an incredibly high 64% approval rating. By the end of the campaign her rating was close to Trump’s. You can’t tell me the nonstop attacks on social media did not have an effect.
14
evidence to support your assertions?
9
If you were influenced by a few ads on Facebook into voting for Trump, you were already beyond help.
It's pathetic that THIS is the alleged "hacking the election." Hillary had a 1.2 BILLION campaign and nonstop media fawning. And still lost.
42
Excuse me, but she did get 3 million more votes that the other guy. She got more votes than any other person in history besides Obama in 2008. The only reason Trump is in the White House is because we have an antiquated electoral system that is easily manipulated by people who can influence a few dummies in the Rust Belt to vote against the best interests of the country.
6
Hillary did not have media fawning. They obsessed over the emails and rarely discussed her platform.
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-just-delivered-the-str...
1
She may have lost the Electoral College, but she did win the popular vote by almost three million. Just like the fact that the majority of people in most states vote for Democrats as their representatives but, due to gerrymandering, the Republicans end up in control. As to Media fawning" most media was all about Trump every day. HRC's platform was rarely mentioned. Just as now, do you see many articles about Democrat Party efforts to pass reasonable laws and regulations? Their efforts are routinely ignored.
1
Google, Facebook, others = Mind Control.... Fines, fines, indictments would be nice...
6
Show us the ads and tell us who paid for them.
43
Pete, how do you really know for sure who paid if it is a group? Do you really know who is in the group with a patriotic sounding name and the group members agenda? And no proof if they pay with Rubles as there are Americans living/working in other countries or made to look like the payment is of foreign denomination.
Yes !!! Show us the ads. I open FB daily and would like to see what these so-called Russian ads look like. I don't think I'm too dense not to be able to recognize an honest opinion from a piece of propaganda.
The idea that such a massive Kremlin propaganda campaign did not impact the votes of some 70,000 Americans is as phony as the Kremlin's propaganda.
The only way to stop it is to prove it doesn't pay.
Prosecute the Trump-Kremlin conspiracy to subvert US election campaign laws to the fullest extent of the law and impeach the President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
43
FB always repulsed me because I knew their first aim was selling us. But I must say I never thought of them selling us to Russia.
174
The best protection against propaganda is education and a curious, discerning mind. Now you know why Trump got 63 million votes.
196
It's not going to happen. There is no way to educate 63 million people in time before they do more damage. The only way is to stop the junk at the source - FB, Google, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube. That's much more achievable.
You echoed my thoughts exactly. We cannot depend on others - the internet certainly - to devise ways o keep us from ourselves, The intellectually lazy who can be so easily had.
And why Hillary got 65.
If the Russians helped organise activist campaigns for social struggles like Black Lives Matter, more power to them. American centrist politicians have refused to support social movements for years in order to maintain the corporate duopoly. It is clear that RT’s video coverage of left wing movements like Antifa and socialist actions deeply disturbs the Democratic elites, who would prefer a Citigroup administration with an equal-gender board than an actual fulfilment of Black rights. Americans should support RT, Ruptly, and other foreign media outlets from an ill-advised attempt to silence them.
4
Are odds are probably better in trying to save the planet from Climate Change as opposed to Silicon Valley.
1
Just how gullible do they think we are?
How many lies do they think we can buy?
How many losses of memory, or faked documents or collusion- yep - for the President to cover for his kid? Or his friends and colleagues? His supporters and co-conspirators?
Percent of people who change their opinions or politics due to a fb meme or inflammatory post is....? Estimates, anyone? We all know that people have their information bubbles, and that such information as it travels on fb is spread through networks of the like minded. Say for example you were "with her," and you saw a "mean" post about Hillary. Would you change your mind about Clinton, or would you flame the comments? I think we all know the answer. And if you saw something about Trump and you were a MAGA fan, the info would also fail to sway. When "your side" is attacked, even with "real" news, everyone does mental gymnastics to explain it away according to their own preconceived ideologies. We ALL know this to be true, which is why there are so many memes about "just keep scrolling" and other jokes about how nobody changes their mind by reading what you post on the internet. The only possible impact would be reinforcing opinions that were already deeply held. Would that affect voter turnout? Possibly, but I thought more voter turnout was a "good" thing. Or is increased voter turnout "bad" if "the other side" comes out to vote? Food for thought.
8
The majority of voter age US citizens are Democrats but they have low turnout. So, yes, high turnout would be better.
1
I suspect this is the real story of Russian influence in the election. Even if Mueller decides that either the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign (or both) colluded with the Russians to get dirt on the opposition, the impact of those efforts would have been dwarfed by these Russian linked efforts which required no involvement by either party.
2
Who's shocked? Anyone?
I'm not. We're beginning the lift the veil. Wait until we get real numbers from Twitter.
3
There will always be real Americans willing to post this stuff for the Russians if they are paid enough but getting rid of fake accounts will certainly help.
1
so we spend Billions on aircraft carriers, and the Russians spend a few dollars on Internet ads to destroy The United States? Welcome to the "information age" I guess
128
Yeah, they spend less in two years than most media companies spend in a week. And somehow Russia's reach is 10x what you typically get for 100k. Such a bogus storyline peddled by amoral journalists. Why not lead with how many people starved or got cholera in Yemen today? And why we keep selling arms to Saudi Arabia and feeding them intel?
1
And 10 of millions of Americans presumably by the own free will thoughtlessly forwarded this stuff along. That’s what is scary.
26
Google, Facebook, and Twitter: Did they really not know? Was it dishonesty? Did they just not care? Was it just about the money?
In the beginning, Google, Facebook and Twitter said that their sites and services did not play any role in the election results. Over the past week or two, we have learned that the opposite is true.
More than 100 million Americans received the Russian lies and propaganda from these sites. Russia fully coopted their capabilities and algorithms. The companies even endorsed and validated the Russian propaganda.
6
It’s not about the ads.
It’s about the whole way these media’s operate, filter, target, and amplify sensationalist information. Which polarises society and undermines critical thinking and decency.
Fb was created as a toxic game that demeaned and objectified female college students by letting the male students vote on their appearance without their consent. It’s creator Mr Zuckerberg blithely and naively denied having an impact on public opinion and influencing the elections. It’s time to regulate and hold him fully responsible for the hateful and sometimes violent consequences of this tool he has built.
The directors of these social media companies should be held fully responsible for everything their tools make possible including, to mention only a few, extremist religious recruiting of teenagers to terrorist organisations , the recent rise and normalisation of naziism, and the election of an unfit president.
38
This is judo, using an opponents "strengths" against him. Putin's timing here was impeccable. People, we mustn't take our democratic institutions for granted. It's all paper thin. It's not written in stone. It's not our nature and therefore requires effort to maintain.
1
Curious to know how much was spent to reach an audience of 126 million.
2
All the more reason why we should have strict campaign spending limits, and the elections funded by the Federal/State Government. Canada's Government funds its elections. Canada's election cycle lasts under 12 weeks. Democracy thrives; people's voices are heard. Common people in the US are sick of the level of political corruption that benefits the elites and the corporations. US Supreme Court is complicit in this mockery of Democracy.
32
While I agree with you, KB, it will likely never happen. Think of all the ad revenue the media companies would lose.
The only people who should be allowed to use Facebook are those with only positive things to say about other people and preferably only Democrats. That should be a quick fix, maybe even just a simple patch.
5
These companies are MEDIA companies and not platforms as they claim. They spend next to NOTHING on fact checking/sourcing as most media companies do. They are not moving AGESSIVELY enough. Hey could build a side business of fact checking/sourcing and make a mint. Instead they are acting naive. Duh, we're just a platform won't cut it!
7
Put the ads in a nice, neat database so we can all see the means by which division was exacerbated by the Russians and who stood to gain by it. Only then can responsible citizens stick them in the faces of the goofballs that helped spread the divisive (pardon the terms) FAKE NEWS.
It's the only responsible thing to do
8
One hundred twenty six million people.....that is quite a number of voters who undoubtedly were influenced by Russian interference. I am a proponent of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. But Facebook must do more to prevent this abominable behavior and intrusion on our democracy as we know it...or have known it.
Mr. Zuckerberg is accountable. This innovative genius of modern times needs to step up to the plate and do more...way more. His rise to affluence and power is not an excuse for his arrogance and righteousness. In fact, these pre-mentioned characteristics may just be his Achilles Heel. He is culpable. And his enterprise is vulnerable, although his ego may not be ready to admit that fact. It is time for this man who has had too much, too soon, to grow up. He needs to take a good long look in his mirror...his reflection may just jolt him into realizing how adversely he affected the notorious 2016 presidential election.
6
These social media platforms violate the most basic principles of security.
Biological entities evolved cellular structures to restrict spread of viruses and other pathogens. Firebreaks restrict spread of forest fires. Firewalls secure networks.
Yet for some reason viral spread is celebrated online as a metric of success. The harms globally are proving to be far greater than any value provided.
Barring strong authentication methods and traceability, hijacking these sites will continue to remain trivial. There is no algorithm capable of filtering out so-called propaganda.
The solution lies with breaking up these monopolies / monocultures and enabling multiple interoperable networks - each competing on the basis of their ability to innovate in areas such as user and content policy, cybersecurity and trust.
4
These numbers are staggering -121 million people exposed to these posts by Russian agents whose intent was to sow discord on such controversial issues as race, religion gun rights and sexual orientation. It is also apparent that the Kremlin wanted the election won by Trump, Facebook has been complicit in not getting this information out in a timely manner to appropriate sources. Indeed we need immediate legislation that would require internet companies to identify who is purchasing political ads,
2
You have to wonder where the Russians got their Omni-channel acumen. Could it have been candidate Trump's digital ad agency? Our Russian friends have a reputation for being good developers but not great digital marketers!
2
It's interesting that Facebook, Google and Twitter are explaining (analyzing) the incidents by focusing on the small amount of Ad revenue received and not on the impact that was achieved by malicious entities. The revenue was a drop in the bucket, according to their reasoning, so no harm done. So apparently that is how the Tech industry characterizes a Black Swan -- a small blip resulting in someone else's problem. Nice.
38
I had a conversation with a friend who works at Facebook over the weekend: he too was under the blithe impression that Facebook had had almost no impact for the same fallacious reason (because it was only $100k-ish spent on Ads). It would seem that they may be doing some internal messaging at the Company.
14
126,000,000 people got the message that Russia wanted them to get. If only 1% were influenced by it, that's 1,260,000 people. And it was only 80,000 votes in three key states that gave Trump the electoral victory despite a national popular vote loss. If he didn't ask Russia to do it, he at least owes them a nice fruit basket.
265
Seriously, consider all the ads that people are hit with every day especially during election season and who is the money behind those ads? Do you really know how much is foreign? How much foreign money is lobbying our politicians?
1
The fallacy of your statistics is that your assuming advertisements, especially isolated ads such as these Russian ones, were effective. I believe that studies have shown that internet advertising, like most advertising, is not very effective and definitely not at the 1% level you are using.
Agreed, and this is one factor. Comey's dilemma decision is another. Spearphishing of Podesta another. Likability another. Pity it's a popularity contest rather than an election of the leader of the free world.
Information spreads through networks. You can look at it as how it flows from node to node, or what it's content is. How it moves from node to node will tell you more about it's content than what the readable content is.
This is a problem, and one I have had to solve over 20 years. My data network performance management company now uses some Facebook technology to help solve it. In a global data network things "go wrong". Network engineers call this a "fault". This causes problems in other network nodes, that then go on to report a fault at each additional node.
Engineers at the NOC (network operations center) then get 100's or 1,000's of related fault alarms, and they had to diagnose the root problem. That's hard for a human to do, and hence my company (and others) were started to automate "fault correlation", as it's known in the industry.
Facebook monitors their "network traffic". They already do it on a "content basis" and also build profiles of the network identities of connecting network sites.
Facebook is proposing human review of posts. No. this will not work. Human engineers cannot deal with the scale of network faults, or in Facebook terms deliberate posts of misinformation.
There is a signature to false information (regardless of content) and there is 20 or more years of software research to know how to deal with "false signals"
6
Through not an IT expert, this makes sense to me. A simple example: When I was teaching young children, it was sometimes very helpful to get a sense of the friendship networks in my classroom. That was in the 70’s and I had no computer. So, trying to get a sense of the shifting alliances between children in one classroom, where I was present nearly all the time, was extremely difficult. Though i tried it a few times.
This, i think, is what the writer above is getting at. Eyeballs are insufficient - even within small groups. And when you consider the faceless aspect to Facebook, in addition to the size, it simply would be impossible to humans to spot what computers can figure out very quickly. If a computer can learn to play GO better than a human, then computers can also spot anomalies in systems way better than humans.
I’m not on Facebook. I don’t work for them. But I know the power of groups to persuade, even if the “groups” are artificially gathered to appear real.
1
I am similarly concerned by the potential damaging effects of other kinds of apparently-sanctioned mass mind control. What about corporate entities brainwashing the populace? Social media has given a powerful platform to many but is overwhelmingly powerful.
I wonder if it can be made safe or if it's simply doomed to perpetuate echo chambers and subversion.
5
And untold millions of Americans, being gullible sheep too ignorant or lazy to double check the information believed it all. The fault is our own.
2
Google and Facebook need to clearly identify the paying source for political ads or any ad that touches political hot button issues during elections season. The TV networks already have to do this.
I also think more clearly identifying who is posting on their networks is to everyone's good. There's nothing wrong -- at all! -- with anonymously reading or anonymously listening. But it's never been acceptable, historically, to have people with anonymous megaphones driving political debates. It's clearly more of a problem when the megaphones in question (FB and GOOG) span borders between the U.S. and unfriendly governments.
Google and Facebook's financial interests do not dovetail perfectly with democracy's interests in this issue.
92
I fully agree to the need to eliminate anonymity for anyone publishing on these media - paid or unpaid content alike!
Anonymity can leads to uncivil behaviour and facilitates abuse.
4
Whatever "clear identification" on political ads we have right now is not enough. How many people do the research to find out who is behind the usually benign sounding groups?
And Facebook just handed Russia and anyone else engaged in systematic propaganda a recipe to avoid any future safeguards, however minimal they might be: Just find a front man whose name you can slap on the account, and all is fine.
1
Character and patriotism check for Republican politicians: Do they retain any?
20
Perhaps RT does not violate Google terms of use, but is that really important in this case?
In other words, perhaps Google needs to revisit their terms of use to exclude propaganda?
(i.e. "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view")
53
Why should foreign propaganda be any more severely restricted than American propaganda of any political party? Indeed, information bias often depends upon the eye of the beholder. I think the most important variable is authenticity of the source of the article so we can all read it fairly.
15
I was receiving death threats on FB. When I reported them--the messages were very clear--"I want to see the life fade from your eyes"--they DID nothing, only asked for further details about graphic posts. So why would we think the death of OUR country would be important to them?
This is such a tragic outcome for a service that has brought many more people together than it has driven apart but yet again it demonstrates the need for intelligent government regulation which despite the GOPs insidious efforts, is a necessary part of creating a good quality of life in our country. Let's ask our congressman and legislators to stop trying to tear down our government and assume the responsibility that they are endowed with by the public when they are elected.
49
"intelligent government regulation" – Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one!
126 million; isn't that within 10% of how many voted? I'm not saying everyone on Facebook votes, but the symmetry is amazing...
17
Boulder:
You do understand that most these ostensible "Russian meddling" Facebook adverts ran after the election?
Hillary lost the election by taking PA, MI, WI, NC, and FL for granted. Donna Brazile pointed out that team Hillary was doing so in Oct 2016.
Obama never made that mistake.
6