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

121–130 of 171 posts

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

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

remarkEon wrote: post #118
dragonwriter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes, if there is nothing substantial to interfere with, it's not possible to have meaningful interference, and therefore alleged “interference” is not, as such, a source of concern. (The acts alleged as interference may be concerning for other reasons, but not as election interference.)

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

#122

Post by pnw_hazor »

kemerover wrote: post #99
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…

I never understand what is wrong with "whataboutism". When someone pretends that he has a moral highground, it is a reasonable thing to call them out on it. If you dont't want a conversation to be "derailed", stop making unsupported, wrong or dubious assumptions.

Never heard of the term until Trump took office.

Whataboutism was okay during President Obama's term. Bush's screwups were often brought up to deflect criticisms lodged against President Obama.

edit: meta

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

#123

Post by reilly3000 »

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…

OP 'Balance Factor' has only made political comments with their HN account. Repeated discourse with an unstated agenda is an attack vector most of us aren't prepared to defend against.

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

#124

Post by Ajedi32 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #79
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Who are these "persons"? It can't logically be the foreign nationals who are attempting to help a campaign. They're not under the jurisdiction of US federal law. It also can't logically be the candidates. Otherwise, the obvious tactic would be to provide overt, unrequested aid to the opposition candidate(s) a…

> It can't logically be the foreign nationals who are attempting to help a campaign. They're not under the jurisdiction of US federal law. Criminal violations of US laws whose prohibition is not expressly territorially restricted that occur outside of the US are successfully prosecuted in US courts with some frequency. Bringing people before the court for prosecution may be challenging where extradition isn't an opti…

In this this hypothetical scenario though it's not even a "person" providing the funds, but a foreign government organization. A US court can't "fine or imprison" the Communist Party of China, or the Russian GRU, for example.

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

#125

Post by Ajedi32 »

AaronFriel wrote: post #17
Ajedi32 wrote: post #7

Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which are meant to prevent this sort of thing? For example, let's assume a foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or systems currently in place…

There are laws against foreign nationals to provide a "thing of value" to a US political campaign. This is obviously a difficult thing to tease out. My source on this is Eugene Volokh, a law professor and First Amendment attorney: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The fundamental question then is: was this intentional on behalf of the foreign agent to provide a "thing of value" to a US p…

But in this hypothetical scenario they're not donating to a political campaign, they're buying advertising space directly from a private organization.

I suppose you could argue that ads which advocate for a political candidate could count as a "thing of value" for that candidate, but even in that case, there _is_ no foreign national to punish here; the entity that funded the effort is a foreign government, not an individual person.

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

#126

Post by Ajedi32 »

elipsey wrote: post #27
Ajedi32 wrote: post #7

Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which are meant to prevent this sort of thing? For example, let's assume a foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or systems currently in place…

TFA: "Under federal law and Federal Election Commission regulations, both foreign nationals and foreign governments are prohibited from making contributions or spending money to influence a federal, state or local election in the United States. The ban includes independent expenditures made in connection with an election. Those banned from such spending include foreign citizens, foreign governments, foreign political…

> foreign governments, foreign political parties

How is that enforced? A US court can't exactly send the Russian government or the Communist Party of China to prison for breaking the law here, can it?

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

#127

Post by paulddraper »

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?

Cheapo chicken feed.

Trump's campaign raised 2,600 times that amount.

Trump himself outspent these Ruskis 660x from his own pocket.

If this amount turned the election, everyone should fire their campaign staff and hire these guys.

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

#128

Post by pamqzl »

AaronFriel wrote: post #21
pamqzl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-profit humanitarian organization Which just happens to pay the Clintons' bills every time they feel like travelling anywhere, and direct money to whoever the Clintons want to do favours for. The election is over, we can all admit that the Clinton Foundation is pretty stinky.

That's probably true, but there's very little evidence of donations to the foundation being used to elicit favors, and there's a smidge of evidence that such attempts failed. Example: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-donor-chag...

If you give money to a government official in return for a specific favour then you'll both wind up in prison.

But there are certainly a helluva lot of ways of for this transaction to occur without anyone ever directly saying "here is your bribe".

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

#129

Post by pamqzl »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #52
pamqzl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just a foreign individual? I'm a foreign individual who went around making comments on the US election... what's the difference between me doing it privately and a company doing it?

As much as America would like to think their laws apply across the globe, they don't actually have jurisdiction over you. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from talking about the campaign. They do have jurisdiction over the candidate and campaign you endorse, though. If you contacted your candidate and offered them money or services in the hope that they could use your help to get elected, and they accepted…

But I could, for instance, buy advertisements in support of my favoured candidate?

I guess not on US TV or US billboards since they're under the control of the US. But if I buy ads on the internet that just happen to be seen by US citizens there's nothing the US can do about it, right?

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

#130

Post by 13years »

scottmf wrote: post #97
13years wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims on Russia with the same merits. As to why, there seems to be more of a corrupt veil that obscures Saudi Arabia's true role in the world vs. Russia. For example https://news.vice.com/story/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-sponsor-...

>If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims on Russia with the same merits. This is some bizarre logic.

Is it really bizarre to apply the same standards? Can the accused verify themselves innocent in one instance but not in another?
Post reply on HN