Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 171 posts

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

spaceflunky wrote: post #34
eroo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law

>Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law WRONG. Nothing prohibits foreign entities from buying their own political ads. http://fortune.com/2017/07/12/us-election-meddling-online-ad...

While in one sense true, the Fortune article seems to be reading the word “television” (or perhaps “audio or audiovisual content”) into the phrase “cable, broadcast, or satellite” as a distribution mechanism when it is not, in fact, present where that phrase is used in FECA, as amended (FECA does have radio and TV-specific provisions, and they expressly name radio and TV, and they aren't the ones of interest here.) Absent case law to the contrary, which is not cited, it would seem by it's plain language to cover most real electronic media including the internet (advertising on a isolated RFC 1149 network would not be covered, of course, nor would ads in plenty of pre-telegraph “old media” like dead-tree-only newspapers.)

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#62

Post by Clubber »

mc32 wrote: post #50
spaceseaman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtually never mentioned I (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point. Reminds me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism EDIT: ... And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is doing it isn't the point. It's a deflec…

Sure, but what about it? Does it not invalidate the basis for complaining, or at least the moral high ground, if you do the same thing? Of course on some level it can be a legalistic tool where while you might have done something illegal you can sue the other party for having done the same, like a countersuit. I'm almost willing to bet that if Merkel was found to have interfered on behalf of Bernie, we'd hear some mu…

We discovered Merkel was spied on by the NSA. I believe she had her phone tapped. That was pretty big but it blew over.

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#63

Post by marksomnian »

raquo wrote: post #47
spaceseaman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtually never mentioned I (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point. Reminds me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism EDIT: ... And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is doing it isn't the point. It's a deflec…

It's the line that Putin and Lavrov (foreign minister) have been pushing since forever: "you westerners are no better than us, stop shaming us for the shady things that we do". That's an easy way to keep your population happy – tell them that life is no better in other countries. Corruption is everywhere, police state is everywhere, etc. And most Russians believe that.

Whataboutwhataboutism-ism.

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

malchow wrote: post #5
chasing wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.

...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...

Aside from the editorializing about "luxury", that's because it is a direct-action charity, not an pass-through charity that gives grants to other charities while skimming off the top for administrative expenses. So, yes, it spends more on travel (and lots of other things) than on charitable grants, because grants aren't the mechanism by which it's charitable purpose is realized.

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#66

Post by CaptSpify »

spaceseaman wrote: post #38
balance_factor wrote: post #31

As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in US elections. There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by the US congress, the soi disant N…

> virtually never mentioned I (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point. Reminds me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism EDIT: ... And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is doing it isn't the point. It's a deflec…

Interesting as this is the first I've heard about it (anecdotal as well).

Though I admit most of my news on this comes from non-comment based news sources (tv, etc)

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#67

Post by malchow »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #15
malchow wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation "Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).

"On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over..." [1]

[1] https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-found...

So of $140M raised tax-free in 2013, half was spent keeping the operation going that very year.

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#68

Post by owebmaster »

fabrika wrote: post #51
balance_factor wrote: post #31

As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in US elections. There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by the US congress, the soi disant N…

In fact we don't have any elections. Opposition leaders are banned or get killed (Navalny, Nemtsov). The opposition is only allowed to have marginal media (Echo of Moscow, TV Rain). An opposing media that becomes popular gets seized by loyal oligarchs supported by corrupt courts (NTV, Lenta.ru, RBC).

And no color revolution took place in Russia.

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#69

Post by akhilcacharya »

balance_factor wrote: post #31

As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in US elections. There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by the US congress, the soi disant N…

That's the benefit of being a sole superpower. There are double standards here for a reason.

Re: Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

#70

Post by korzun »

spaceseaman wrote: post #38
balance_factor wrote: post #31

As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in US elections. There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by the US congress, the soi disant N…

> virtually never mentioned I (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point. Reminds me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism EDIT: ... And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is doing it isn't the point. It's a deflec…

In most cultures, you don't criticize somebody for something while doing the exact opposite.

Whataboutism does not apply to 90% of conversations but don't tell that to people who think they are smart by bringing it up.

Whataboutism:

A) 'You interfered with our elections!!' B) 'You bombed a children hospital! What about that?'

NOT Whataboutism:

A) 'You interfered with our elections!! YOU HACKED OUR ELECTIONS!!! PUTIN ORDERED TO STEAL OUR VOTES!!! B) 'That's great, you have been doing the same thing for decades all over the world. Mind shutting up?'

Post reply on HN