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

Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#11

Post by pm90 »

alehul wrote: post #6

It was apparently $100k spent by RT to promote news stories. Why is it so unusual for a news company to spend money promoting news stories on social media sites? This is nothing out of the ordinary (including if a government did try small actions to impact an election), and yet it has become such an intense witch hunt during the 2016 election.

> Why is it so unusual for a news company to spend money promoting news stories on social media sites?

Because its not a "news company", it is a known propaganda arm of the Russian Govt. masquerading as a news company. If it was an independent news agency, it would be OK.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#12

Post by alehul »

pm90 wrote: post #11
alehul wrote: post #6

It was apparently $100k spent by RT to promote news stories. Why is it so unusual for a news company to spend money promoting news stories on social media sites? This is nothing out of the ordinary (including if a government did try small actions to impact an election), and yet it has become such an intense witch hunt during the 2016 election.

> Why is it so unusual for a news company to spend money promoting news stories on social media sites? Because its not a "news company", it is a known propaganda arm of the Russian Govt. masquerading as a news company. If it was an independent news agency, it would be OK.

So where do you suggest we draw the line between what state-sponsored news is allowed vs forbidden to do? Should we only forbid them from buying advertising? Why not forbid their reporting of news altogether?

Also, I don't think people have similar complaints about Al Jazeera's reporting on Russian election campaigns?

Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#13

Post by pm90 »

sabalaba wrote: post #10
noncoml wrote: post #3

FB, Amazon and Google have to be split up. It is not in the interest of the society or safe to have such huge companies with such huge power. For Google at the very least the search engine has to become a separate independent entity with restrictions on how and what information is exchanges with the rest.

Many of the valuable projects that we get from FB (AI Research), Amazon (Echo, Kindle, etc.), Google (Brain, Waymo, GMail, Android, etc.), are due to their strong market position and a product that throws off cash. They have this market position because they are the best at what they do. These companies don't have monopolies because of government mandate, they have them because they make the best products. It's frigh…

The fraction of income that goes into research is not that large for the companies that you mention.

Lets remember that these are not traditional monopolies, in the sense of Standard Oil. They are much worse, as they are so embedded in the lives of people today. Their status as monopolies will be tolerated by society only as far as they don't exhibit anti-competitive practices.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#14

Post by pm90 »

alehul wrote: post #12
pm90 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it so unusual for a news company to spend money promoting news stories on social media sites? Because its not a "news company", it is a known propaganda arm of the Russian Govt. masquerading as a news company. If it was an independent news agency, it would be OK.

So where do you suggest we draw the line between what state-sponsored news is allowed vs forbidden to do? Should we only forbid them from buying advertising? Why not forbid their reporting of news altogether? Also, I don't think people have similar complaints about Al Jazeera's reporting on Russian election campaigns? Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live…

> Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction.

Please don't normalize this kind of behavior. Every country does not do "this". There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds, except perhaps NPR, but that has been openly critical of the US all the time.

And that is perhaps the test of truly independent news outlet: if its willing to criticize its own Government, if its able to do so, even when the information paints the Govt. in a really bad light.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#15

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #2

$1.5 billion was spent in the federal election season. 100k was bought by Russian interests and were questioning those 100k when we spend much more destabilizing other governments we oppose. Still, we should look into why a campaign season wastes 1.5 billion on one contest and no one bats an eye, or some do a little but the media couldn't care less. It's one of their cash cows.

[deleted]

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#16

Post by blfr »

pm90 wrote: post #14
alehul wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where do you suggest we draw the line between what state-sponsored news is allowed vs forbidden to do? Should we only forbid them from buying advertising? Why not forbid their reporting of news altogether? Also, I don't think people have similar complaints about Al Jazeera's reporting on Russian election campaigns? Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live…

> Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction. Please don't normalize this kind of behavior. Every country does not do "this". There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds, except perhaps NPR, but that has been openly critical of the US all the time. And that is perhaps the test of truly independent n…

NPR has been openly critical of the GOP all the time. I'm sure RT is willing to deliver a scathing criticism of Putin's opposition if anyone cares to listen.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#17

Post by askvictor »

mc32 wrote: post #2

$1.5 billion was spent in the federal election season. 100k was bought by Russian interests and were questioning those 100k when we spend much more destabilizing other governments we oppose. Still, we should look into why a campaign season wastes 1.5 billion on one contest and no one bats an eye, or some do a little but the media couldn't care less. It's one of their cash cows.

Don't dismiss a (even much) smaller amount; if properly targeted it can be a lot more effective than the crop dusting approach that traditional advertising takes.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#18

Post by rtpg »

mc32 wrote: post #2

$1.5 billion was spent in the federal election season. 100k was bought by Russian interests and were questioning those 100k when we spend much more destabilizing other governments we oppose. Still, we should look into why a campaign season wastes 1.5 billion on one contest and no one bats an eye, or some do a little but the media couldn't care less. It's one of their cash cows.

Campaign finance is a big topic, at least for the Democrats. Public financing plus constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen's United was in the party program.

And just because we do shitty things to other countries doesn't mean we should roll over and allow it to happen to us (see also: cyber attacks).

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#19

Post by rtpg »

pm90 wrote: post #14
alehul wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where do you suggest we draw the line between what state-sponsored news is allowed vs forbidden to do? Should we only forbid them from buying advertising? Why not forbid their reporting of news altogether? Also, I don't think people have similar complaints about Al Jazeera's reporting on Russian election campaigns? Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live…

> Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction. Please don't normalize this kind of behavior. Every country does not do "this". There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds, except perhaps NPR, but that has been openly critical of the US all the time. And that is perhaps the test of truly independent n…

Pedantic, but Voice of America is basically a US "propaganda" outfit. But a lot of countries do not really have this.

RT is totally at a different scale. It's clearly being used as a political outfit. Other state-owned media in many countries have rules about editorial independence. RT clearly does not.

Re: Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets

#20

Post by corporateslave2 »

askvictor wrote: post #17
mc32 wrote: post #2

$1.5 billion was spent in the federal election season. 100k was bought by Russian interests and were questioning those 100k when we spend much more destabilizing other governments we oppose. Still, we should look into why a campaign season wastes 1.5 billion on one contest and no one bats an eye, or some do a little but the media couldn't care less. It's one of their cash cows.

Don't dismiss a (even much) smaller amount; if properly targeted it can be a lot more effective than the crop dusting approach that traditional advertising takes.

Do you really believe this? You really think 100k stands up to 1Billion?
Post reply on HN