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

Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

fathom.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#31

Post by TaylorAlexander »

code_duck wrote: post #28
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the long standing rumor is that Russia influenced the US election through Facebook. Okay, fine. You know what I want to hear about? The wealthy Americans who used Facebook to influence the US election. If Facebook can be used in this way, I think looking at what Russia did is interesting, but it’s not the only story! The story is, people are subtly and quietly influincing our elections! Shouldn’t we look closely a…

No, that’s nice but it’s a different issue. We already have plenty of inquiry into the influence of Americans with money on politics, with Citizens United and whatnot. A hostile foreign government’s operations to propagandize Americans about politics is important to analyze.

Call it a different issue, that’s fine. But it’s an issue I want to hear about! I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I have over Russia.

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#32

Post by swsieber »

dahdum wrote: post #29
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the long standing rumor is that Russia influenced the US election through Facebook. Okay, fine. You know what I want to hear about? The wealthy Americans who used Facebook to influence the US election. If Facebook can be used in this way, I think looking at what Russia did is interesting, but it’s not the only story! The story is, people are subtly and quietly influincing our elections! Shouldn’t we look closely a…

Russia spend is estimated at $100k between 2015 and 2017, when Trump and Clinton spent $81M on Facebook alone. I've spent more than the Russians did on Facebook ads, to think that amount of money was a deciding factor is pretty absurd.

Is it absurd though? Russia probably didn't follow any disclosure laws. Also, these ads are more about driving traffic to groups with content designed to influence people without coming off as ads. I guess the real question is how much Clinton and Trump spent on astro-turfing vs Russia's ads.

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#33

Post by ithilglin909 »

matt4077 wrote: post #17
marcrosoft wrote: post #14

If they bought ads to slant an election what does this say about the people falling for it? Also, this is just digital propaganda. The US gov. and media outlets do it too.

if someone shoots you what does that say about your ability to avoid danger and dodge bullets?

If it was under circumstances in which a typical person ought to have been able to avoid being shot, it would say a lot (not that that justifies the action of the shooter).

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#34

Post by aksss »

swsieber wrote: post #32
dahdum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia spend is estimated at $100k between 2015 and 2017, when Trump and Clinton spent $81M on Facebook alone. I've spent more than the Russians did on Facebook ads, to think that amount of money was a deciding factor is pretty absurd.

Is it absurd though? Russia probably didn't follow any disclosure laws. Also, these ads are more about driving traffic to groups with content designed to influence people without coming off as ads. I guess the real question is how much Clinton and Trump spent on astro-turfing vs Russia's ads.

It's absurd. 100k vs 81m. If their ads were that much more effective for that much less money, they've not just got the best marketing pros in the business, they've discovered some revolutionary secret to advertising. What's the most likely explanation? 100k ads from Russia tilted the election, or Hillary was a shit candidate. Could it be that someone's ego is at play in this narrative besides Trump's?

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#36

Post by Bartweiss »

Since getting results out of this seems to be a struggle, here's an article with some static pictures of the ads - and more interestingly with discussion of their ridiculously low user engagement rates.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/10/congress_russian_fa...

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#37

Post by aksss »

I think it's telling that tech people are very skeptical of the "$100k in facebook ads turned the election" narrative. Read the actual report from the DNI. Election counts weren't altered, the ads are nothing-burger. The hacks on mail systems were primarily done with spear-phishing, the same things businesses are caught with every day. My conclusion - phishing is the real story here of any consequence, if we want to "do something" it should be centered around better defense against this. That said, it's very interesting that Podesta's emails DID reveal collusion between the campaign and revolving-door political/media employees (CNN leaking debate questions to Hillary, etc). That's also a very significant story, and the more the narrative about Russia sucks all the oxygen out of the room, the less we're talking or even thinking about that kind of corrupt shit.

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#38

Post by mc32 »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #20
gnode wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why people switched. If I remember correctly, it wasn't so much that many people switched parties, but that typical Democrat voter turnout was low, reflecting some amount of disillusionment. Also, what you say about the Democrats' identity crisis seems to mirror what's been happening with Labour (the left party) in the UK.

>reflecting some amount of disillusionment Disillusionment through propaganda and well-timed leaks of stolen documents by a foreign, hostile power.

Does the source of the leaks matter? Does it matter that it was Wikileaks, AccessHollywood, Guccifer? Either something is true or it isn’t.

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#39

Post by frockington »

mc32 wrote: post #11
lagadu wrote: post #6

I find the irony in so many Americans being outraged at a foreign state influencing another state's elections to be deliciously intoxicating.

I think it’s mostly redirecting dissatisfaction. Dems waaay underperformed and need to find a scapegoat rather than look internally and see why people switched. But no, they rather blame others, be they foreign or even within the party: right now the Dems can’t decide if they are 1980s Dems or 1920s Workers Partiers.

Rather than try and understand why Midwestern states such as Ohio flipped heavily Republican it seems like the plan is to call them idiots and bigots. It seems like some introspection and message focus is needed. The name calling path isn't working

Re: Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

#40

Post by code_duck »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #31
code_duck wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s nice but it’s a different issue. We already have plenty of inquiry into the influence of Americans with money on politics, with Citizens United and whatnot. A hostile foreign government’s operations to propagandize Americans about politics is important to analyze.

Call it a different issue, that’s fine. But it’s an issue I want to hear about! I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I have over Russia.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN