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

41–50 of 171 posts

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

#41

Post by takeda »

GabrielF00 wrote: post #18
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.

They've also helped millions of people get affordable AIDS medication. http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15...

Don't want to get into Trump vs Hilary debate, but don't you think it is a bit strange that nearly every rich individual has their own foundation? A foundation that most people don't know what is responsible for. Most of the time you don't hear it doing much either.

Why for example some political entities donate large amount of money to these foundations instead of the ones that are proven to do something (like red cross).

It feels like perhaps those foundations are there just to exploit a tax loophole, and that they donate once in a while to specific cause to satisfy their legal requirements.

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

#42

Post by raquo »

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…

Well, both Putin and the US have good-to-them reasons to interfere in each others elections. And to interfere in Russian elections.

On a serious note, the reason you don't hear about it is because US interference in Russia, whatever that was, didn't come even close to turning Russian elections.

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

#43

Post by LeifCarrotson »

JamesCoyne wrote: post #24
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…

The Federal Election Commission would have something to say: "The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from th…

> 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) and send them all to jail.

I'm not sure it can be Facebook or other Internet sides. It is true that Facebook is a US company, but the content on their sites is protected under the DMCA safe harbor exemption. And then the law wouldn't handle the case of sites not under US ownership.

FECA dates back to the 70s, and it doesn't seem to do a good job of handling the globalization of the Internet. If someone from overseas looked at the facts themselves and, without talking to a candidate, just plastered Google and Facebook and YouTube and Twitter with endorsement of one candidate and criticism of another, is it reasonable to try to stop them?

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#46

Post by havetocharge »

raquo wrote: post #42
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…

Well, both Putin and the US have good-to-them reasons to interfere in each others elections. And to interfere in Russian elections. On a serious note, the reason you don't hear about it is because US interference in Russia, whatever that was, didn't come even close to turning Russian elections.

So, if I was to draw a parallel, murder is only bad if it is successful?

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

#47

Post by raquo »

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…

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.

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

#48

Post by jonny_eh »

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…

So? This isn't about morally shaming Russia.

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

#49

Post by bduerst »

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...

You're both right. Sounds like a law that hasn't been updated yet for online ads.

>The laws that prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence U.S. elections do not prevent them from lawfully buying some kinds of political ads on Facebook and other online networks

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

#50

Post by mc32 »

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…

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 musings, but not nearly the vehemence we hear about alleged Russian interference (that particular accusation seems to have become muted recently, however).

Post reply on HN