Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Says 10 Million US Users Saw Russia-linked Ads (reuters.com)
Some 10 million people in the United States saw politically divisive ads on Facebook that the company said were purchased in Russia in the months before and after last year's U.S. presidential election, Facebook said on Monday. From a report: Facebook, which had not previously given such an estimate, said in a statement that it used modeling to estimate how many people saw at least one of the 3,000 ads. It also said that 44 percent of the ads were seen before the November 2016 election and 56 percent were seen afterward. The ads have sparked anger toward Facebook and, within the United States, toward Russia since the world's largest social network disclosed their existence last month. Moscow has denied involvement with the ads.
Anybody can post politically divisive content on Facebook.
That's the whole point!
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
but we're supposed to believe $50k worth of ads on Facebook had an effect on the election?
Facebook admitted to promoting pro-Hillary and suppressing pro-Trump stories/outlets. Where is the investigation and media attention for that?
Moscow has denied involvement with the ads.
Yeah, Moscow has no credibility because it lies so much even when it is incredibly obvious to the non-cynical.
I mean, remember when they invaded Ukraine and said "Nah, that's not us!"
(Not the best source, but an accurate headline:) https://www.thedailybeast.com/...
The only ameliorating factor in this is how millions of those ads were probably never seen by a human but instead rendered onto an offscreen bitmap in video memory by a fraudulent ad bot designed to extract the most funds out of unsuspecting advertisers, in this case Russia but usually clueless Madison Ave. companies.
Definitely affected my vote
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The total cost of a presidential campaign is estimated to be around $2.65 billion. So now we are supposed to believe that the $100K spent on Facebook ads by Russia (56% of which were only seen *after* the election) were a key factor that determined the outcome? This is a total non issue but it will be hammered non stop for months by the traditional media simply because they are dying and will seek any opportunity to make the government regulate Facebook, Google and the other digital companies that are killing them.
Nobody cares. Russia hacked into your brain and installed a brain slug that made you vote for Trump. If we keep telling you that, surely you will believe it.
--msmash
Facebook admitted to promoting pro-Hillary and suppressing pro-Trump stories/outlets. Where is the investigation and media attention for that?
Comey admits to leaking classified information, gets a sweet book deal. Reality winner leaks classified information, sits in jail denied bond.
The DNC siphoned $60 million from down-ballot elections into Hillary's campaign to fight Sanders, which would appear to be a violation of FEC rules on its face(*).
Susan Rice unmasked wiretaps of Trump and advisors without a warrant, which was then leaked to the press.
Bill Clinton had an "on the tarmac" meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch while Lynch was investigating the E-mail scandal.
Hillary got $11,000,000 from the King of Morocco in return for a special-access meeting with the (then) Secretary of State.
Consider how much time and effort and taxpayer money has been spent on investigation Trump's Russia connection - and they're now looking at $50,000 of *ads* taken out by people from Russia. Compared to the amount Hillary spent? Or Trump spent?
I live in hope that some day our administration will grow some balls and start prosecuting people for blatant corruption - even though it may look on the surface like political reprisals against the losers.
(*) FEC puts a limit on the amount any individual can donate to a candidate. Many donors gave the maximum to Hillary, and donated more to down-ballot candidates. Moving down-ballot money to Hillary's campaign is likely violating the "maximum donation" rule.
... about the Australian who's picking your winners and losers in every election. News International?
You know who doesn't block ads? Republicans. Know why? Because they think of that as stealing.
Given that this is Facebook we're talking about, plus their bungled attempts so far to save face over their part in this debacle, this estimate seems egregiously low, by a factor of 5 to 8 or more.
A baseless assertion (especially since the Dems are generally the stronger copyright proponents, while Republicans get yelled at by artists for using songs during campaigns), but if they are already of that mindset, then the ad seems unlikely to make a big change.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This is just the Left's dolchstoss-legende being solidified. Trump didn't win, it was a stab in the back by TEH ROOSHINS. (Seriously, "blame the foreigner"? It's like the oldest trick in the book) In years to come, this will become a bedrock belief of the Left, that all these bad things happened because dirty foreigners made them happen. I can understand why! Having to come to terms with the fact that ordinary Americans are hurting would be emotionally devastating. It would be having a heel realization, and having to completely rethink things, and humans will do anything to avoid that.
Being forced to realize that Americans, having not benefited at all from the government policies of the last 30 years, voted for the only change they could see would mean that they were wrong all along. So, the stab-in-the-back legend, right alongside blame-the-foreigners, is being embraced by a lot of educated people who tell us they know better than to fall for such fallacies.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
And 9 million, 999 thousand people will yell "FAKE NEWS!". Overcoming set expectation of outcomes is a loosing business.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Given that Facebook is desperately attempting damage control how likely is it that this number is on the extremely low side? Remember FB claims to be good at spreading information, and apparently disinformation as well, so why not give it a shot as part of their defensive strategy. They have a lot of plausible deniability, so they might as well push their own "alternate facts".
The best part of all of this is that FB is now saying that they don't have much impact on their viewers. "The latest company statement said that about 25 percent of the ads were never shown to anyone". Is that what they tell their advertising clients? That a quarter of their advertising dollars are a complete waste of money? It seems extremely unlikely that is the story they use when they are talking to Wall Street or any organization that is trying to use FB as part of their online strategy.
Is it possible that no one will connect the dots between FB claiming to be a great place to get out your message vs how they didn't have any impact when it came to election tampering?
Why is Snark Required?
On Slashdot no one knows if you are being paid off by the Russians.
Why is Snark Required?
Or say tried to do change another countries government?
Requiem for the American Dream
All still supposition and it mischaracterized the actual situation with over simplification.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Russians are entitled to place ads even politically derisive ones.
No one has proven these were placed by the Russian government, which also isnt illegal.
Zuckerberg is a Democrat and as someone with political aspirations he has every reason to follow the DNC narrative.
This is a win all round for Facebook as they can say that $100,000 nets you effective influence over 10,000,000 people.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
You think it is bad here. On reddit the CEO edits the posts of users.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The difference is that you know catwoman is a criminal and you only laugh at what the joker may have done.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Lets see... from the summary, "10 million people saw at least one add." (going to assume that # accounts for ad blocker and other such things)
Quick google search shows about 214 million FB users in the USA
of those, about 8% are under voting age.
so 3.3% of the USA FB population who are eligible to vote saw at least 1 ad.
Kinda puts it all into perspective.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Which is why you saw no ads or stories about this, they're called targeted for a reason. Besides, unless you live in the key swing states there's no reason to target anything to you in the first place. Look at what the Trump campaign itself said it's doing with targeted voter identification and advertising:
Emphasis mine. And this is the Trump
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
3000 ads got 10,000,000 "impressions" - just think what our marketing department can do for YOU!
An ad that was presented isn't necessarily seen. Just because an ad appears during a football game doesn't mean everyone watched it.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The massive barage of ads and other media propaganda by CNN alone didn't override the influence of 10 million people seeing 1 ad?
More proof of the bogus red scare created by the left.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Oh no! Russian "ads" on Fakebook....so?
Shall we start the conspiracy now?
Similar to the democrat's agenda in invalidating the 2016 presidential election with accusations of Russian interference, the 2018 mid-term elections were hacked in favor of Hillary Clinton's party by the Chinese and Ukrainian governments.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
There's a compulsory license BTW. The artists have no legal basis for a complaint even though they may have the right to express moral objections.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
All bogus and inflated fact scarce leftist talking points.
Prove any one of those with actual true facts without using news articles.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
From the numbers, that pretty much has to be 10 million impressions, not 10 million people. I.e., the ads were shown 10 million times, to some (smaller) number of people.
I don't live in the US, but answer me this: During election season, how many ads did eacy person see? Hundreds? Possibly thousands? Multiply by a population of 300,000,000, and we are talking on the order of hundreds of billions of ad impressions. Against which, 10 million is not even a drop in a bucket.
This Russian fetish never was relevant. The more information that emerges, the more obvious this is. Some people just cannot accept that Hillary! was an absolutely crappy candidate, and that half the country voted for "anybody else".
The D's need to get over it already, and maybe put up a decent candidate next time. But they won't, they'll nominate someone like Pelosi. Trump is very likely to win again in 2020.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Just accept it. However bad Trump was as a candidate, Clinton was worse.
She had all the MSM, Hollywood, the universities, etc. etc, on her side. Even big business and a fair slice of the Republican poobahs who hated Trump were on her side. She still lost.
Nobody needed any "fake news" (except you, but it didn't work); the real news was bad enough. "First old white woman" just wasn't enough to get her there. She lost. Period.
Going ballistic, acting even more insane, none of this is helping you. This is in fact why he won.
All bogus and inflated fact scarce leftist talking points.
Prove any one of those with actual true facts without using news articles.
Chto ty govorish' o Borise?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Compulsory license in the US applies only to covers: you can't prevent someone else from recording a cover of your song, and paying to a fixed royalty, but there is no compulsory licensing for recordings. You can't use a recording of someone's performance without permission, except as permitted by fair use or an explicit license.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I didn't know Millard was running. Damn! I missed out.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Which ones? How many? Links? You appear to be manufacturing "facts".
I do agree many claim the Russians attempted to influence the election, but I've rarely seen any claims that they almost certainly ACTUALLY changed the final results.
In other words, which Democrats directly and clearly claim the outcome would be different? I don't want pundit interpretations, I want to see actual quotes.
Table-ized A.I.
You mean like "Hands up. Don't shoot." ?
Or, "Women only make 75% of what men do for the same work." ?
That sort of thing?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Stop with the bullshit responses meant to attack others rather than discuss the facts. You sound hysterical.
Show us one iota of actual evidence that proves anything that you believe about the Russians, just one single thing. The only limit is that you can't use the press/media reports as evidence.
You can't do it. You have no idea what happened. You haven't been given a spec of evidence from the justice system nor has anything been proven through a prosecution.
Everyone should read the book called "The Smear" by Sharyl Attkisson. Chapter 1 gives a very good overview of the tactics of the leftist, how they formulated those tactics, and the extent they'll go in using them.
Back in the 50s we had a red scare movement that destroyed a lot of innocent lives. It would have been better that we learn from history so we don't make the same mistakes. It looks like some are eager to make those mistakes again only to compound on them because it meets their biased political agenda. That red scare movement was branded as McCarthyism. Decades later it was condemned as unpatriotic and un-American, and rightfully so.
There's been no evidence whatsoever that has been presented to the American people that demonstrates that the Russian government was responsible for the hacks into the DNC, nor Podesta's emails. In fact, Comey admitted that the Russians had nothing to do with the Podesta breach. He said this before congress in testimony under oath.
The Obama administration stated that Russians had hacked our election. He said that all 17 Intelligence agencies had given their concurrence with high confidence.
Before congress, James Clapper, who was the head of the DNI, admitted that only 3 agencies had signed off this assessment, not 17.
In the summary that was released to the press only 3 agencies were listed. That summary had a banner at the top that essentially stated that nothing contained therein should be construed as evidence or fact.
One of those agencies, the DHS, didn't sign off. They were only quoted. The second, the NSA (which is under Clapper) gave the report moderate confidence. The FBI, which isn't even an intelligence agency, was the only entity that gave the report high confidence and it turns out that they didn't even look at the DNC servers instead they relied on a 3rd party private entity hired and paid by the DNC. The FBI was repeatedly denied access to the servers.
Either you can go all rabid following the talking points of the left or you can put forth a real effort to try to understand what happened. We have newspapers tossing out unsubstantiated unsupported inferences to circumstances that then publish those as if they are fact.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
YES! They totally do, and they're right.
Sure, you block ads and so do I. But that's not typical. If Facebook were a total fraud, their customers would eventually stop buying ads. And spam exists because spam works.
And, knowing that some people block ads and some don't, might you be able to draw some inferences about the people who don't? Perhaps non-blockers are actually particularly ripe for certain types of ad targeting.
As it happens, I've never actually seen the original, but I've nevertheless learned of the meme third-hand: "You wouldn't download a car, would you?" Isn't that intended for a certain kind of person, who just happens to also be the kind of person most likely to see it?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Stop with the bullshit responses meant to attack others rather than discuss the facts. You sound hysterical.
Damn right I'm hysterical. I keep 'em in stitches. I'd be remiss if I didn't credit people like you for providing material for me.
Show us one iota of actual evidence that proves anything that you believe about the Russians, just one single thing.
I believe that they have a lot of really good looking women, and I love their accents when they speak English. I believe they drive around with dashcams a lot. Did you see the one where some poor dude has an accident and he's carrying propane canisters and they go off in the resulting fire.
The only limit is that you can't use the press/media reports as evidence.
You can't do it. You have no idea what happened. You haven't been given a spec of evidence from the justice system nor has anything been proven through a prosecution.
Oh, now you are just making maudlin. Your demands are only possible to meet in a post-legal process situation. To use a presidential situation, this is like Dick Nixon wasn't guilty of anything because he was never put on trial. Or that Slick Willy never got his knob polished by Monica Lewinsky because his impeachment wasn't sucessful in the end.
Spare me your silly lawyer's tricks Boris.
What we do know is that the senior advisor to the Present Administration attempted to open a secure communications facility using Russian embassy equipment. This in itself is quite disturbing, perhaps yu can go to the American Embassy in Moscow and ask them to do the same, then go tell Putin you did it. No problem eh, tovarish? We also know other things.
But since we do get our information from the media, why would you even accept a media report of the results of th ecoming court actions? The utmost denial is strong in you comrade, much vodka, and perhaps we can exchange sat and bread some day, I have to respect convictions so strong they can withstand nuclear powered truth. Meanwhile rant on. I'm no leftist, my cock-a-whoop friend, I do however do like the truth, something you have left behind a long time ago....
You do know that you lose points every time you trot out the tired old tactic of claiming everyone that doesn't walk in lockstep with you as a leftist don't you? Probbly not.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, it's a blanket ASCAP/BMI license. It isn't compulsory, but literally anybody you hear on the radio has already signed up for the deal.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Wow, don't you have some other new conspiracy that we can focus everyone's attention on??? Get over yourselves...
Why would our country turn into Somalia for valuing free speech?
As far as the courts are concerned it is a holy document.