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

111–120 of 171 posts

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

#111

Post by aaronbrethorst »

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…

Evan McMullin, previously the House Republican caucus's chief policy director, had the following to say on this topic:

    This is a Kremlin talking point. The U.S.
    doesn't undermine liberal democracies
    overseas. Any examples otherwise would be
    from the Cold War.
https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/905572789666635777

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

#112

Post by unfunco »

javajosh wrote: post #103
meri_dian wrote: post #90

I implore everyone alarmed by recent Russian assaults on Western Democratic institutions to get their hands on an English translation of 'The Foundations of Geopolitics' by Aleksandr Dugin. Dugin is a Russian academic and the book is essentially a textbook on how Russia should seek to subvert and destabilize Europe, the US and other Russian rivals in order to forge a new empire for the explicit purpose of ethnic Russ…

I'm curious: other than a will to power, is there any philosophical or principle-driven reason for Russia's actions? In other words, why don't Russians want Western liberal democracy for themselves?

A similar question, but specifically related to "…in order to forge a new empire for the explicit purpose of ethnic Russian domination of the world." – what is the purpose of this in this day and age, it would take generations by which time the people initiating change would be dead, is it just an archaic form of racism?

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

#113

Post by dunkelheit »

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…

I think there is an important difference to whataboutism because what the parent mentions is not merely something similar but a reciprocal action.

Say, bringing up alleged violations of human rights in the US in response to mentioning censorship in Russia is whataboutism, but mentioning that not only Russia but both countries try to influence each others elections may signal that two countries are actually having a fair fight (for some definition of fairness) in the information wars as opposed to Russia being the sole aggressor.

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

#114

Post by mc32 »

Ivoirians wrote: post #92
mc32 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think anyone is trying to make the case that their side is morally superior. The issue at hand is how to prevent and punish what looks to be serious, efficacious interference, not how to perfectly avoid being biased or hypocritical. Like, pointing out "liberals would be arguing less vehemently about interference if it had produced an outcome they wanted" is pretty meaningless, don't you think? And "they did a…

If say the Russians had had an information/disinformation programme to help Hillary win and she had won, I am sure Repubs would have cried to the high heavens, but I think the media would have been less vehement about it.

I do think the US does put forth the idea that we do operate from a relatively higher moral ground vis a vis Russia (and others) and human rights, freedoms, cronyism, corruption, etc. We have NGOs working to that effect in addition to the diplomatic ranks and corporate governance, etc.

It's not that we are wrong, but we're also not always right.

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

#115

Post by ThomPete »

jonknee wrote: post #88
ThomPete wrote: post #78

"Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian “troll farm” with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said." Excuse my ignorance but isn't $100K chicken feed?

That’s what Facebook self reported that it discovered, not necessarily the whole operation. It’s also direct evidence of non-hacking related attempts to influence the election. Furthermore, considering there is a criminal investigation going on over whether or not the Trump campaigned colluded with Russia on such activities, the dollar amount is pretty meaningless.

It's what FB reported unless you have reason to suggest otherwise the $100K is quite relevant.

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

#116

Post by manbearpigg »

chasing wrote: post #4
manbearpigg wrote: post #3

Didn't Hillary take some 25 million dollars from the Saudis? I thought this witch hunt was put to rest months ago.

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

You believe that the Saudis donated 25 million dollars out of the kindness in their hearts, to an American foundation, run by Hilary Clinton, without any implication that the favor be returned?

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

#117

Post by baybal2 »

meri_dian wrote: post #90

I implore everyone alarmed by recent Russian assaults on Western Democratic institutions to get their hands on an English translation of 'The Foundations of Geopolitics' by Aleksandr Dugin. Dugin is a Russian academic and the book is essentially a textbook on how Russia should seek to subvert and destabilize Europe, the US and other Russian rivals in order to forge a new empire for the explicit purpose of ethnic Russ…

Another excellent speech on reds' tactic is this https://youtu.be/5gnpCqsXE8g , old, but I believe relevant

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

#118

Post by remarkEon »

dragonwriter wrote: post #71
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…

> I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections If Russia had meaningful elections to interfere in to start with, that would concern me a little bit as an American, and a lot if I was a Russian. Since Russia doesn't, however...

So your test for whether or not US interference in a foreign election bothers you is whether or not they have sufficiently "meaningful" elections? What?

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

#119

Post by Clubber »

dragonwriter wrote: post #93
Clubber wrote: post #59

>Most of the ads focused on pumping politically divisive issues such as gun rights and immigration fears, as well as gay rights and racial discrimination. When I read this I thought that this is what the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh. It's all about selling fear and division. There's no longer nuance, no longer presenting both sides of an argument. It's all this is good or this is evil.

> When I read this I thought that this is what the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh WaPo, and even Limbaugh, generally does not invent false flag news stories on both sides of divisive issues purely to drive division. WaPo may perhaps distort coverage to favor one side of divisive issues because of editorial biad or focus on existing divisive voices because conflict draws eyeballs, and Limb…

They do it for profit though. I don't see the motive as particularly relevant, the result is the same, division and fear.

Limbaugh certainly does. He said Sandra Fluke was a prostitute. I'm sure he's said many other things. WaPo and NYT are a little better, but their writers have gone a little bonkers over Trump hurting their credibility. I'm sure there are some Limbaugh like news sites on the left. There have to be, riling people up is very profitable. What about the DNC pushing Sanders off the ticket story? I mean take as step back and analyze all this stuff the press puts out. It's pretty divisive.

I'd really like to see a side by side comparison between Russian planted ads and comments and domestic ads and comments. Do you think we could tell the difference?

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

#120

Post by chasing »

manbearpigg wrote: post #116
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.

You believe that the Saudis donated 25 million dollars out of the kindness in their hearts, to an American foundation, run by Hilary Clinton, without any implication that the favor be returned?

Hillary Clinton (two "L"s) never ran the Clinton Foundation. She spent two years on the Board. The President of the Clinton Foundation is Donna Shalala. And the person who probably actually leads it is the founder: Bill Clinton.
Post reply on HN