Facebook Fought Rules That Could Have Exposed Fake Russian Ads (bloomberg.com)

According to Bloomberg, Facebook has for years fought to avoid being transparent about who's behind election-related ads online. "Since 2011, Facebook has asked the Federal Election Commission for blanket exemptions from political advertising disclosure rules -- transparency that could have helped it avoid the current crisis over Russia ad spending ahead of the 2016 U.S. election," reports Bloomberg. From the report: Communications law requires traditional media like TV and radio to track and disclose political ad buyers. The rule doesn't apply online, an exemption that's helped Facebook's self-serve advertising business generate hundreds of millions of dollars in political campaign spots. When the company was smaller, the issue was debated in some policy corners of Washington. Now that the social network is such a powerful political tool, with more than 2 billion users, the topic is at the center of a debate about the future of American democracy. Back in 2011, Facebook argued for the exemption for the same reasons as internet search giant Google: its ads are too small and have a character limit, leaving no room for language saying who paid for a campaign, according to documents on the FEC's website. Some FEC commissioners agreed, while others argued that Facebook could provide a clickable web link to get more information about the ad.

Facebook wouldn't budge. It warned that FEC proposals for more political ad disclosure could hinder free speech in a 2011 opinion written by Marc Elias, a high-powered Democratic lawyer who later became general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Colin Stretch, a top Facebook lawyer, said the agency "should not stand in the way of innovation," and warned that such rules would quickly become obsolete. When it came time for the FEC to decide in June 2011, the agency's six commissioners split on a 3-3 vote. Facebook didn't get its exemption, so an advertiser using its platform was still subject to a 2006 ruling by the FEC requiring disclosure. But the company allowed ads to run without those disclaimers, leaving it up to ad buyers to comply.

Comments

Wait a minute.

[mark_reh]

Every time I follow a link to a news story, the web site puts a popup on my browser that says I should turn off my ad blocker. Are you going to tell me that Facebook can't generate a popup that shows the source of an ad when you simply move you mouse or pointer or finger over the ad? I have a hard time believing that.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I search for something and I have to go to a Facebook page I am locked out from backwards navigation (back to my search). It makes me think...how did the internet get so completely fucked up. Where did the idea come from that this is okay or useful in any way? Not to mention prompting the user to import all their personal contact info.

FUFB

Re:Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

Are you going to tell me that Facebook can't generate a popup

Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong. The law does not require them to disclose the source. Nor should it. Here is the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please explain where in the phrase "no law" you can fit a law requiring the disclosure of the source of political speech.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

The preceding was paid for by the Pedophiles for ShanghaiBill election committee.

Is that an example of the speech you don't want restricted, maybe so you can produce child porn snuff films and call it free speech?
Or are you going to modify your assertion?

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, please speak to the congresscritters & the courts to have such laws removed as they apply to print & TV media. If it's wrong then its wrong for all media. But that's not what FB & Google argued. They could have gone to court to fight it under the 1st amendment, they didn't, they just don't want the laws to apply to them while they apply to others thus giving them a competitive advantage. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Media is media, if a law is constitutional it should apply to all, if it isn't, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

Re:Wait a minute.

[rtb61]

This whole story is a crock of shit. Can Facebook block foreign ads, no, abso-fucking-lutely impossible. Why, seriously how stupid are people buying into US government propaganda and click bait of the worst order. Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour. Not that I would mind a global ban on Ads and corporate propaganda coming out of the US. Think of all the movies and TV series that could be banned because of product placement ads for foreign products, this from a collapsing entirely corrupt power mad state, the USA, which routinely puts it's self serving arrogance and ignorance, hypocrisy, government deceit, betrayal of allies and of course we can do it to you because we will kill you with nuclear missiles but you can't do it to use because we will kill you with nuclear missiles and from the words of the idiots themselves, publicly advocating genocide, killing your entire population, not just the opposing government.

Just another part of the shite show that failed to get the corporate whore elected, looking to distract from policies like universal health care, a living wage for all workers, equal access to democracy and equal access to justice. Here look at this hand full of nothing, whilst they slap in the face with the hand full of shit and you had better like it. Will you people not wake up. This bullshit is all about preventing discussion of real issues about funding of the war industrial complex, where the bulk of funding disappears in profits and corruption, whilst you idiots allow your infrastructure to collapse around you.

Unless you actively tell them to shut the fuck up about this bullshit and pay attention to the real issues, this shit show will continue, you gullible idiots.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The law does not require them to disclose the source. Nor should it. Here is the 1st Amendment:"
Nonsense. Political campaigns are required to disclose the source of any campaign donations they receive. The TV and Radio media outlets are required to disclose the source for any political advertisements they publish. In no way is any of these requirements a violation of 1st Amendment protections. You can buy as many political ads you want but you cannot do it anonymously. Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not bound by the 1st Amendment and they can randomly censor anything they want. Facebook is only cooperating with the government in the Russian inquiries because they are desperately trying to prevent the government from requiring them to adhere to FCC regulations. If TV and Radio
media channels fall under the FCC why not the companies who dominate the online communication channels?

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong.

then why did fuckerberg apologize?

Re:Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

In no way is any of these requirements a violation of 1st Amendment protections.

This law does what the Constitution says "no law" can do. So how is that not a violation?

Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not bound by the 1st Amendment

They are not bound by the 1st Amendment, but they are protected by it.

If TV and Radio media channels fall under the FCC why not the companies who dominate the online communication channels?

TV and radio use limited broadcast spectrum that is licensed to them in return for restrictions on what they can use if for. Facebook, and cable TV, do not use licensed RF spectrum, and the government has no right to regulate what they say.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

The once or twice a month I have to go to facebook for whatever unfortunate reason it pops up a huge 'Log In/Create Account' overlay box that covers more than 50% of the screen. Clicking "Not Now" doesn't dismiss the box, but instead moves it to the bottom of the screen, where it still covers about a third of the window and can't be closed or further shrunk.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually cable is FCC regulated. If a cord is physically severed, it becomes an antenna and floods the area with a range of frequencies that are within the bands allocated to cable providers.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a fuck who bought the ads. If people are fucking stupid enough to let it sway their opinion then they deserve Trump-Clinton for PotUS.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

This law does what the Constitution says "no law" can do. So how is that not a violation?

The text of the 1st amendment does not run "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of foreign intelligence services to undermine this Constitution." It provides no constitutional guarantee of anonymity such as you appear to claim nor does it prohibit laws requiring disclosure in regard to political advertising.

Indeed, as the distinction between prohibiting certain US persons from publishing political ads (clearly unconstitutional) and the requirement of those persons to disclose themselves (not unconstitutional) was made clear in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010), your position would appear difficult to sustain.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

The preceding was paid for by the Pedophiles for ShanghaiBill election committee.

So who's got enough balls to use this as their sig?

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you doing logged out of Facebook, friend? Would you like us to send your password to your mobile phone to help to reconnect with your family and loved ones?

Re: Wait a minute.

[I'm New Around Here]

I would, but I'm not ShanghaiBill or his pedophile followers.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tell me, how KGB agents are protected by the First Amendment and I will agree with you completely.

Re:Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

It provides no constitutional guarantee of anonymity

Anonymity is not "guaranteed" but laws prohibiting anonymity clearly violate the "no laws" clause.

nor does it prohibit laws requiring disclosure in regard to political advertising.

How do those laws fit in the "no laws" requirement?

Re:Wait a minute.

[Hognoxious]

You would be right if the law prevented them from running the ad at all.

It doesn't, so you're wrong. Again.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Hognoxious]

It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

Re:Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.

Re: Wait a minute.

[knorthern knight]

> If a cord is physically severed, it becomes an antenna
> and floods the area with a range of frequencies that
> are within the bands allocated to cable providers.

And if pigs had wings, they could fly. You're talking about an abnormal condition. Note that Playboy TV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... runs R-rated films, while the FCC tried to levy a $550,000 fine against CBS for the Janet Jackson "Wardrobe Malfunction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which was later appealed in court. More recently, Game of Thrones shows scenes on cable that are not allowed on FCC-regulated OTA TV.

Re: Wait a minute.

[denzacar]

I thought he was only supported by Nazis and the KKK?

Re:Wait a minute.

[reboot246]

Is money speech? SCOTUS seems to think it is and I somewhat agree with them.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod UP!!

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Following your logic then, no political ad on any media ever needs to be disclosed. So that would mean even ads bought by foreign nationals that everyone is screaming violates campaign laws would also not need to be disclosed, all ad buying can be totally anonymous.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, less than one minute of Facebook's revenue stole the election!

Re:Wait a minute.

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe ads should have a country of origin label, like goods do. At the very least, every ad should be accompanied by the name of the organization paying for it. Not sure how to deal with shell companies and the inevitable ad anonymization services though, except perhaps that sites could elect to ban them as a show of good faith to readers.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

You people are idiots who worship at an altar of people dead for centuries, and you refuse to be responsible for the present by constantly taking the (designed to be amendable) opinions of these dead men as gospel.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're seriously joking, right? These people who have been dead for centuries were obviously smarter than you. They knew that protecting freedom is way more important than your childish urge to Do Something whenever some self described crisis or problem comes up. You don't like that they had the foresight to block your emotion induced laws against whatever is triggering you? Tough.

I'm just sorry they didn't go further. We have enough media and politician created "emergencies" and "epidemics" that just have to be addressed right now or else. We don't need any more.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigotry and xenophobia confirmed in the first two words "you people".

Re:Wait a minute.

[mrclevesque]

It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the law requires conditions before legal speech is allowed then its not entirely free speech and it then becomes a law abridging the right of speech. Its not hard to comprehend. Now whether its interpreted that way by SCOTUS or not is another topic. If SCOTUS decides (like they did) not to take that phrase literally or to take it in context then that becomes "constitutional law". But then again if SCOTUS decides that phrase means "all people except blacks can talk because they arnt people" (which they have in the far past) then that becomes "constitutional law". Both cases don't change what it literally says which is NO LAW ABRIDGING... 0 none zilch.

Re:Wait a minute.

[memojuez]

Political Advertisements are not examples of "Free Speech." The FEC wants the same accountability and disclosure from Facebook that is already required for Political Ads on other mediums (i.e. TV, Radio, et al)

A Facebook user's post is "Free Speech" and is not in the crosshairs of regulators.

Re:Wait a minute.

[tsqr]

Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour.

"Absolutely legally"? No. "Participating in a conspiracy to violate Federal law"? Yes.

Re:Wait a minute.

[jbengt]

The right to anonymity is considered by many to be essential to the right to freedom of speech. It's a contentious issue of debate, and I lean towards that opinion. But the courts almost never consider any single right to be absolute, and will weigh one right against other rights and against potential consequences; e.g. conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected speech. As pointed out above, courts have ruled that your right to know who is supporting a political candidate is greater than the right of that person, corporation, or political entity to be anonymous. The same does not hold for paid speech advocating a policy rather than a candidate, so there's a lot of grey area in the law.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclosing the source of speech does not limit free speech. Hence, a law demanding disclosure is not a constitutional problem.

The point of free speech is thet you don't get arrested for stating your opinion. You may still have to stand by your words - or at the very least suffer criticism and be remembered for your words. "Free speech" does not imply saying anything with no consequence at all. If you want to advocate nazism you _can_. But you may have to live with being a known nazi then. Same for any other opinion you may have. You're free to voice it, but you'll be known as someone with that kind of opinion. Live with it.

Re: Wait a minute.

[jbengt]

It's you who are taking it out of context, not SCOTUS. The courts usually weighs rights against other rights. For example, it has long been held that conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected speech, that slander and libel are not protected speech, that commercial speech has certain restrictions, like telling the truth and disclosing ingredients. In this case, your right to know trumps the speakers right to anonymity, according to the courts.

Re:Wait a minute.

[MightyMartian]

Wish I had.mod points. An excellent and thoughtful analysis. There are too many people who suffer from a sort of absolutist binary thinking on matters of constitutional rights.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Please explain where in the phrase "no law" you can fit a law requiring the disclosure of the source of political speech.

Government, with multiple court blessings, have no trouble interpreting "no law" to mean "we can't outright ban, but we can put all kinds of limits, roadblocks, and partial bans in the way of exercise of said right" when it's the second amendment. Why not do the same for all the rest? The 4th has been gutted pretty good as well.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo on your first sentence. Which is why historically, pen names were used at the press. And quite remarkably when people became dumb enough to start using their real names for everything, we started to run into this problem. And perhaps the reason why we have run into the real name problem is because we established so many privileges and protections (post 911) in society that have these requirements to provide one.

The solution surely isn't to look to the government to protect anonymity or fix it, because they are a part of the problem. Not only do they not have the capacity to do it, but they can't be trusted to do it because of things like this story. This isn't a rocket. If there were no crimes committed and due process wasn't not followed that temporarily nullifies the 1st, then all government entities can suck it, period. They are constitutionally forbidden to do anything else, but then, who gives a shit about the constitution these days?

So the burden of anonymity lies on the individual and our government to get real about some shit, and fix federal and state laws that require everything we do, down to the DNA code in our stool, to be stored, monitored etc.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Hognoxious]

How can SCOTUS take something out of context? It's impossible by definition.

You seems to be confusing how the law *is* with how you think it *should be*. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but yours carries no weight; SCOTUS' does.

Re: Wait a minute.

[BlueStrat]

The preceding was paid for by the Pedophiles for ShanghaiBill election committee.

I thought he was only supported by Nazis and the KKK?

No, that's probably me you're thinking of, at least according to many Leftist Slashdot A/Cs & trolls without any history, logic, or facts with which to refute my posts. :D

Strat

Re: Wait a minute.

[BlueStrat]

You seems to be confusing how the law *is* with how you think it *should be*. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but yours carries no weight; SCOTUS' does.

Actually, as a member of 'The People' his (and others in the same group) opinions weigh *more* than that of the SCOTUS.

The People are the final arbiters of Constitutionality, not the SCOTUS, Congress, the POTUS, nor TLAs.

Strat

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think he's fucking wrong, so now neither of our opinions matter for shit.

Easy aint' it?

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as a member of 'The People' his (and others in the same group) opinions weigh *more* than that of the SCOTUS.

Actually, he doesn't. "The People" doesn't just consist of him and people who think like him. Its members also include feminists, environmentalists, union bosses, welfare moms, socialists, communists, fascists, leftists, people who double dip, etc.

Being a member does not grant him any authority to decide what "The People" as a whole wants. Nobody consented for him/his opinion to be the representative of "The People"

SCOTUS however, were indirectly selected with the consent of The People, as The People voted for those who get to select/appoint/approve judges.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think he's fucking wrong, so now neither of our opinions matter for shit.

Easy aint' it?

Yup, now all ya gotta do is convince 2/3rds of the States and/or hold a Convention of States to amend the Constitution and you're fucking good to go.

Easy, ain't it?

You...you don't think too many steps ahead...or behind, for that matter...do you?

Ya know, there's something to that 'history' and 'critical thinking' stuff despite what your indoctrination commissar...err...college professor...told you. You should check them out sometime, bro. That way you're not always the IRL-version of the 'pony-tail guy' in the bar in 'Good Will Hunting'.

Just sayin'...

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in dire need of a history education. The people dead for centuries certainly succeeded in creating a durable constitutional framework but they never really practiced what they preached. They had no "All men created equal" is certainly the most glaring example espousing a good idea but they certainly did nothing to make that a reality. We are still struggling to eliminate race and gender biases when defining equality. The framers of the Constitution were wealthy white land owners looking to secure their wealth and power by kicking the English out and establish their own rule. The protections defined in the Constitution were there to secure the support of the general population. They needed that support to build the military forces needed to overthrow English rule. The Constitution enshrines goals not reality. "All men created equal" has never been true but it is something still being sought.

"We have enough media and politician created emergencies and epidemics"
Because people are just to fucking stupid to understand that they are the ones responsible for the problems being faced today. Not the government and not the media. Today people pick sides, surround themselves with like minded individuals, and spend all their energy on figuring out who to blame for the problems we face. After the blame is properly affixed they move on to the next outrage of the day and start the process again. Solving the actual problems never enter into the discussion. We have allowed a small minority of the left and right lunatic fringe to drown out any sensible discussions on how to fix the problems. Right-Left arguments are not about solving any problems it is about winning the argument. And there are no restrictions on the methods used to win the argument and sooner than later the methods will include violence.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself

How do you arrest a corporation?

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just leave this here.

Re:Wait a minute.

[budgenator]

Just tell me, how KGB agents are protected by the First Amendment and I will agree with you completely.

What you are not getting is natural people do not have the right to free speech because the 1st amendment gives them that right, they have that right due to being natural people; and your KGB Agent is a natural person too. The 1st amendment is a prohibition on the US Government in regards to interfering with the people's rights, not a granting of those rights.

Re: Wait a minute.

[DivineKnight]

Wait, can I get that as a browser extension, and some mild randomization? I have an idea...

Re: Wait a minute.

[BlueStrat]

Actually, he doesn't. "The People" doesn't just consist of him and people who think like him.

Nice strawman you've built, there.

Please cite where I said any one of 'The People's' individual opinions mattered more or less than others.

If there are a sufficient number of individuals among 'The People' who share a common opinion/view that the SCOTUS is getting it wrong and should be abolished, they can amend the Constitution and disband the SCOTUS. They could even abolish the current government altogether if they had a sufficiently-large majority. Therefor 'The People' are the final arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional.

Strat

Re:Wait a minute.

[Hognoxious]

It's not like that. It's more like this: I can speak all I like, but not if I'm wearing a paper bag over my head.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Hognoxious]

If there are a sufficient number of individuals among 'The People' who share a common opinion/view that the SCOTUS is getting it wrong and should be abolished, they can amend the Constitution and disband the SCOTUS.

Oh come on. They've done that three times this week already.

Oh wait, they haven't. Ever.

Re: Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman you've built, there.

Nice falsely accusing people of strawman there.

Please cite where I said any one of 'The People's' individual opinions mattered more or less than others.

Please cite where I said you said that :)

I was responding to your statement that his opinion weighs more than SCOTUS's opinion. He is an individual. The People are a collective. The two are not interchangeable (sorry lefties, they're not). That you think showing how one supersedes SCOTUS means the other does too is the real strawman here.

If there are a sufficient number of individuals among 'The People' who share a common opinion/view that the SCOTUS is getting it wrong and should be abolished, they can amend the Constitution and disband the SCOTUS. They could even abolish the current government altogether if they had a sufficiently-large majority. Therefor 'The People' are the final arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional.

...and therefore, his opinion does not weigh more than SCOTUS. "He" != "The People". The two are not interchangeable. He hasn't gotten enough people to amend Constitution, or abolish SCOTUS, or overthrow the government. Until/unless he does, his opinion does not hold more weigh than SCOTUS.

But then as I said before, SCOTUS are selected/approved by people who were democratically elected. AFAIK he doesn't have that, so that makes SCOTUS' opinion weigh more.

Re:Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.

The laws on disclosure do not contain the word "corporation" and apply to individuals as well as companies.

If disclosure is not an abridgment of speech, then please post your real name and address.

Re:Wait a minute.

[farble1670]

Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong.

You are confused.

The 1st Amendment applies between the government and it's citizens, not between Facebook and their ad-purchasing clients. It says "Congress shall make no law". What does Facebook requiring disclosure of / showing the source of an ad to users got to do with congress making a law? Facebook can require their clients submit a GIF of them dancing around in a dress if they want.
 

Re: Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

slander and libel are not protected speech.

Actually, slander and libel ARE protected speech. If you know that a newspaper is planning to publish a libelous article, and you go to a judge to request a
restraining order, that request for prior restraint will almost certainly be denied.

The newspaper has a right to publish, even when it is printing libel. You can only sue after the fact.

Re:Wait a minute.

[mrclevesque]

I'd argue disclosure is a condition imposed on freedom of speech not an abridgement of speech.

Re:Wait a minute.

[ShanghaiBill]

I'd argue disclosure is a condition imposed on freedom of speech not an abridgement of speech.

I'd argue that "a condition imposed on" and "an abridgment" are the exact same thing.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymity is not "guaranteed" but laws prohibiting anonymity clearly violate the "no laws" clause.

No that is simply incorrect. As I informed you above, the disclosure provisions have been found not to be in breach (re-affirmed, I believe, earlier this year). Your personal misreading is impertinent as against the actual meaning (which is the meaning SCOTUS gives it).

How do those laws fit in the "no laws" requirement?

There is no "no laws requirement," it's a limitation on the legislative power of Congress. Why does a disclosure requirement such as to facilitate free and fair elections not exceed these limits? Well most obviously because the clause is silent as to any right to anonymity. But did you not read Citizens United vs FEC? Why ask me when the authoritative answer to your question has already given?

Re:Wait a minute.

[mrclevesque]

Judges and lawyers have decided there is a difference.

I'm guessing they argued that asking for disclosure after a speech is not the same as abridging that speech (in the legal sense of curtailing). And as others have mentioned, competing rights need to be balanced.

Re:Wait a minute.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue they are not.

"abridgment" means shortening or reducing. So "an abridgment" of speech is the shortening or reduction of speech - you're forced to say less.

But the condition here is not saying less, but saying more - to provide more information than what you might originally wanted to give.

Now, you can argue that forcing someone to say more is just as bad as forcing someone to say less. but I would argue that depends on what exactly they're forcing you to say.

If you're forced to tell a lie or promote something that you don't truly believe in, like the cops trying to beat a confession out of you to a crime you didn't commit, yeah that's bad. If the party forces you to come out and sing praises for the party you don't really like, yeah that's bad.

But this is forcing people to tell the truth. It's more like how you aren't supposed to lie when registering/showing up to vote, or applying for citizenship/immigrant status/any welfare, or being a witness in court, etc.

Re: Wait a minute.

[denzacar]

No, no, no... You are supported by trolls and people with IQ below room temperature.

I.e. People who upon seeing "Nazis and KKK" mentioned jump on the opportunity to align themselves with those morons by shouting "THAT'S WHAT LEFTISTS CALL ME!!! HARHARHAR!!!"

Re: Wait a minute.

[BlueStrat]

If there are a sufficient number of individuals among 'The People' who share a common opinion/view that the SCOTUS is getting it wrong and should be abolished, they can amend the Constitution and disband the SCOTUS.

Oh come on. They've done that three times this week already.

Oh wait, they haven't. Ever.

No. *You* "oh come on". That's disingenuous and you disappoint me in going there, as you usually have much better arguments.

There are plenty of provisions in the US Constitution that have never been done "ever" like calling up the unorganized militia, holding a Convention of States, etc etc etc. That does not mean they are irrelevant. Many things laid out in the Constitution are of the "break glass in case of emergency" category but are nevertheless perfectly valid and cromulent.

And you know that as well as I do.

Strat

Re:Wait a minute.

[mrclevesque]

And the rights of corporated individuals are not identical to the rights of individuals.

"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[turkeydance]

nope. no crisis.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know what the crisis is? Trump got elected. That has to be someone's fault, and it can't possibly be the Democratic Party.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

It is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to try to influence US elections. Russia did this en masse in 2016. So yes, crisis.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? So you are saying that as a Permanent Resident Canadian, not only am I not allowed to vote, thought I'm taxed (which is REAL rich given the whole 'no taxation without representation' mantra of how the US SUPPOSEDLY started its revolution), but now you're saying I can't give any money to any group trying to influence a US election of any kind? That's some 'free speech' rights the US has. Now, I might understand a law being constitutional that barred foreign GOVERNMENTS from trying to influence an election, but all foreign nationals of any kind.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Obfuscant]

I have yet to hear how we expect the US to enforce this law, or why we can make laws concerning what foreign nationals can do while solely within the borders of foreign countries. Shanghai Bill points to the First Amendment as a reason that all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional, so I will point out, besides being an unconstitutional limit on free speech, it is a law created to control someone who has no representation within our system of government. We fought a war over taxation like that, so why wouldn't we fight a war if someone tried to create laws over our citizens? If we wouldn't accept it, why should any other country?

Now, if it were a law prohibiting US corporations from accepting money to carry such ads, that's a different thing. But the law itself does not make the campaign or anyone involved legally responsible for ads ("electioneering communication") purchased by foreign nationals, only for money accepted as a donation to their campaign.

But no, the fact that some Russians bought some ads in 2016 doesn't turn it into a crisis.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ShanghaiBill]

It is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to try to influence US elections. Russia did this en masse in 2016. So yes, crisis.

It may have been a crime, but it is ridiculous to call it a "crisis". A lost puppy is a crisis. Last year's ads are not.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[HermMunster]

Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments? How on Earth do you enforce any of it?

What law, BTW? What law says that they can't post political ads?

What about Hillary's campaign working with Ukraine on getting the dirt on Trump? How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies? How about once an intelligence agent then always an intelligence agent?

At what point do you cease allowing the political party a say on when and what will be enforced?

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it a crisis? It's not a crisis, it's a distraction.

Why is it illegal for foreign nationals to want to influence the election? The US influences elections in other nations all the time. Who cares if they bought Facebook ads? Why does it even matter?

Do people seriously believe if it weren't for some ads on Facebook, Hillary would have somehow not mishandled classified information, causing the FBI to reopen their investigation a week before the election? Did the ads prevent her from campaigning in Wisconsin? Did Russians buy ads that forced her to call working Americans "deplorable?" Did she accidentally click on a Facebook ad that made her proudly declare she was going to put coal miners out of work?

Really, who cares? This is something that if it were done against Republicans would merit a fine, but since it was done against Her Majesty, it's now a "crisis." Please.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

Really? So you are saying that as a Permanent Resident Canadian, not only am I not allowed to vote, thought I'm taxed (which is REAL rich given the whole 'no taxation without representation' mantra of how the US SUPPOSEDLY started its revolution), but now you're saying I can't give any money to any group trying to influence a US election of any kind?

That's different. A Permanent Resident is not a US citizens, but is a US person. US persons cannot vote, but they can donate money and time to US political campaigns. They can even assist in some ways at polling places.

I should have specified that nonresident foreign nationals are prohibited by law from donating to, or participating in, US election campaigns.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?

If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.

But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Any foreign power can lobby and fund junkets for congressmen, but somehow showing crappy ads gets attention. McCain going abroad and bashing the US while being treated to expensive hotel stays, private air travel, and meals is somehow not a crisis or cause for concern. If you think Russia is the problem, you are way off base. Congress can shut the door at any time, but then they would lose their benefits, which just cant be done.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[davide marney]

Here's a summary of the FEC regs: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fo...

"In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012)."

So, depends on the nature of the advertisement. If it's issues-oriented, it's probably fine.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

What about "what about"? Hmmm?? What about?

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

turn it around. If I, US citizen, move to Canada, I get the distint honor of paying Canada income tax, VAT/GST on all my purchases, and cannot participate in Canada's health care system?

At least you CAN get US social security, even as a Canadian citizen working in the US.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice how the people screaming the most about "muh russian interference!" are also the ones who scream the loudest against voter ID laws?

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

turn it around. If I, US citizen, move to Canada, I get the distint honor of paying Canada income tax, VAT/GST on all my purchases, and cannot participate in Canada's health care system?

Canadian expat here.

Don't quote me, but my recollection is that if you are resident in Canada for 6 months or more, then yes, you are eligible for government health insurance in the province you reside.

BTW, there is no such thing as Canadian VAT. Yes there are PST and GST, but no VAT.

At least you CAN get US social security, even as a Canadian citizen working in the US.

The Canadian equivalent is the CPP (QPP in Quebec) and yes, you can get either if you worked in Canada and are vested, regardless of citizenship or subsequent residency.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

How, exactly, would voter ID laws have prevented their interference?

Oh, right, false equivocation...

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Who told you that? Whoever it was is entirely wrong. Not only do you get the equivalent, you get more. Like free public education for any children under the age of 18, and greatly reduced University fees vs non-residents.

You want a real kicker? The US is one of only 2 countries that taxes someone based on citizenship regardless of where they reside. So as a US citizen if you become a resident of Canada you'll pay taxes in Canada AND you have to file a tax return to the US and may be taxed by the US..don't believe me google it.

Heck, I can keep going. If you become a citizen of Canada you can hold any government office, including Prime Minister. But I can't become President even if I become a US citizen...so clearly some US "cutizens" have greater rights than others.

Try renouncing your US citizenship, if you make enough money it will cost you a bundle in "exit taxes"...Hell this last one will apply to me if I move back to Canada...this is all public record, just google.

And on the question of voting. Canada wasn't founded on the premise of "no taxation without tepresentation", the US was...you'd think the Founding Fathers would have realized that what matters for influencing government is whether or not a person is paying taxes to support it and not a random event of who you were born to or where you were born. And before you ask, I'd say Canada should change their voting rules as well...Again though Canada wasn't founded on the idea, the US was..

You seriously need to learn more about your own country much less your best neighbor.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia did this en masse in 2016.

Just like 2012, 2008, 2004, 200, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948, 1944, 1940, 1935 and 1932.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so non-US citizens are bound by US law regarding what opinions they may express.

Delusions of grandeur much?

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, dude. That's some serious conspiracy shit right there.

It appears you are a bit out of touch with how things work. Here let me get you started:

>At what point do you cease allowing the political party a say on when and what will be enforced?

The very beginning.

The only thing that has a say over this is the law.

>What law, BTW? What law says that they can't post political ads?

Seriously? Is this a real question? Political advertising is powerful and dangerous and has been regulated heavily since the get go.

If you're not just trolling and you really would like to understand this better, here's something to get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, you are a whiny, sniveling snowflake.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[johanw]

However, nonresident non-US nationals not living in the US don't need to follow US laws.

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Mashiki]

Don't quote me, but my recollection is that if you are resident in Canada for 6 months or more, then yes, you are eligible for government health insurance in the province you reside.

No. You need to have resident status(or fall under one of the landed statues), or be a citizen in that province for a period of 6 months. Otherwise the province will simply bill the province that you're actually from.

BTW, there is no such thing as Canadian VAT. Yes there are PST and GST, but no VAT.

The electronics tax is a VAT, so are the "green recycling" taxes on electronics. The fuel taxes also have a VAT and federal excise tax on them. The GST replaced the old "manufacturers tax" which was a defacto VAT and applied on everything.

The Canadian equivalent is the CPP (QPP in Quebec) and yes, you can get either if you worked in Canada and are vested, regardless of citizenship or subsequent residency.

If you worked in the US, you can claim the time you've worked in the US for your Canadian CPP contributions too.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments? How on Earth do you enforce any of it?

The UK parliament did no such thing. If you're talking about individual ministers like Boris Johnson then fine.

But how is that the same as a covert propaganda campaign exactly?

There's a fundamental difference here - you KNOW that the statement on Trump's mental health came from a British politician but you have no idea what the source of the ads is.

If Putin came out and made a statement about preferring a candidate then that's fine, because that's an opinion and you know who it's attributed to. Most people probably wouldn't listen to the Russian president's advice on who to elect because they know he's interesting in one thing and only one thing - the rise of the neo-USSR.

But if he's funding a covert ad campaign to try and influence ideas then that's not a mere opinion, that's outright propaganda. People WILL and DID fall for it because they had no idea the source was untrustworthy, they didn't realise it was coming from the head of a state that was opposed to them being a strong nation, and that wants to weaken them and strengthen the opposing nation as far as possible. Thankfully even Trump's own party accept what happened and have done everything they can to limit his ability to act in a manner that supports the opposing nation that carried this out, i.e. by blocking his ability to remove sanctions on Russia.

Let's be honest, what you're really saying is "I support Trump and don't want to accept that a large part the reason I voted for him and he got elected is because I fell for a Russian propaganda campaign like a complete mug" isn't it?

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Bearhouse]

Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election?..... How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?

[Added the bold]. Abusive? Sounds more like "fair comment".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If we're talking about Trump, his subsequent words and deeds should have confirmed to all that he's obviously neither of sound mind nor fit to hold the office of POTUS.

But of course, these days right, left and all love to instantly demonise their opponents - or just anybody that disagrees with them on a random topic - by labelling them as "abusive" or whatever.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[AmiMoJo]

Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election?

It was important for our MPs to discuss those issues, given that there was a very real possibility of someone with possible mental health issues and a volatile temperament and finger hovering over the tweet button might win.

It's actually worked out really badly for us. The EU is on the rise again as people look to it for strength and leadership as America declines, and our hope of getting a good trade deal post-Brexit from Mr. America First fucked-over-everyone-he-ever-did-business-with is looking pretty remote.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[cascadingstylesheet]

If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.

But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.

So foreign "influence" is fine as long as nobody pays for it?

What if Russia uses a free Google adwords coupon?

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[tsqr]

However, nonresident non-US nationals not living in the US don't need to follow US laws.

No kidding. Companies in the US DO have to follow US laws, and US companies that accept money to run political ads from from non-US nationals not living in the US are in violation.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons! Only TV news is real. ae911truth dot org

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[bill.pev]

nope. no crisis.

..And therein lies the crisis!

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Still illegal. They paid for it. Just a very low price.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[hublan]

How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies?

FYI. The dossier was initiated and originally funded by a rich donor to the "Never Trump" arm of the Republican party.

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Rhipf]

turn it around. If I, US citizen, move to Canada, I get the distint honor of paying Canada income tax, VAT/GST on all my purchases, and cannot participate in Canada's health care system?

At least you CAN get US social security, even as a Canadian citizen working in the US.

Just to clarify (as a US citizen with permanent residence status in Canada), you do pay taxes but that also entitles you to "participate in Canada's health care system". You even get to have a social insurance number so are entitled to Canadian pension benefits once you become 65 (as well as employment insurance if you should lose your job).
The only thing that not being a Canadian citizen limits me to is that I can not hold public office and I cannot vote in elections.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's not true. A foreign nation can spend money on issue ads, which may have influence over who a voter might choose to vote for. They cannot spend money on ads which endorse particular candidates. This is settled case law. This is one reason it is so important that Facebook release the lists of ads. If they are issue ads then no crime was committed. If they are not issue ads then perhaps a crime was committed.
Now should Russia or any other foreign nation be able to buy issue ads prior to an election? I don't know. Would you have a problem with Canada running an issue add about Great Lake environmental concerns before an election is Michigan or Wisconsin? Or Liberia about the Jones Act before a congressional election? Or the European community about Climate Change?

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it a crisis? It's not a crisis, it's a distraction.

Why is it illegal for foreign nationals to want to influence the election? The US influences elections in other nations all the time. Who cares if they bought Facebook ads? Why does it even matter?

Do people seriously believe if it weren't for some ads on Facebook, Hillary would have somehow not mishandled classified information, causing the FBI to reopen their investigation a week before the election? Did the ads prevent her from campaigning in Wisconsin? Did Russians buy ads that forced her to call working Americans "deplorable?" Did she accidentally click on a Facebook ad that made her proudly declare she was going to put coal miners out of work?

Really, who cares? This is something that if it were done against Republicans would merit a fine, but since it was done against Her Majesty, it's now a "crisis." Please.

Spoken like a true Russian. But we're talking about Americans.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

The government of Russia is not a foreign national.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone in the US, regardless of their nationality, is bound by US law. If a person in Canada flies a weaponized drone into the US and kills someone, you bet your ass they would be extradited and charged in a US court.

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

HermMunster is a Russian shill. You can often distinguish them here because of the unjustified "Insightful" moderation.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair if you believe the people opposing Trump are culpable for doing a poor job of it you pretty much have to also agree that the people who advocated for Trump are at least as responsible.

The truth however is the responsibility for Trump's election lies with the people who voted for Trump, the people who did not vote, and the people who voted "third party" in that order.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[budgenator]

Depends on the law, murder, rape and a few others are non-territorial.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[budgenator]

So if we finally find proof Obama wasn't a US citizen, do we get to put him in prison for running his campaign ads?

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

"Non-territorial?" I think you're right, mostly.

I'm not an expert, but my thoughts, for what they're worth: laws governing a crime are applied at the location of the crime, unless an individual has diplomatic immunity. (For that case, I dunno.)

If someone commits a crime in country A and flees to country B, there may (or may not) be extradition treaties between these countries that will permit the person to be brought to trial. Extradition is non-trivial, and typically involves judicial reviews in the country where the accused is apprehended. So it may happen, or not.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

So if we finally find proof Obama wasn't a US citizen, do we get to put him in prison for running his campaign ads?

I suppose. But here's the problem with your plan:

1. The US Constitution stipulates that the individual states are responsible for keeping birth records.
2. The state of Hawaii says that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
3. THE END.

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[ClickOnThis]

You want a real kicker? The US is one of only 2 countries that taxes someone based on citizenship regardless of where they reside. So as a US citizen if you become a resident of Canada you'll pay taxes in Canada AND you have to file a tax return to the US and may be taxed by the US..don't believe me google it.

Okay, stop and take a deep breath.

There. Better? Okay.

Countries may tax their citizens even if they are nonresident. However... practically every country in the world has a tax treaty with every other country in the world -- even countries who aren't particularly fond of each other. These treaties aim to eliminate double-taxation because, duh, that's just not fair and everybody realizes it.

So how does it work? IANA tax accountant, but I have had experience with filing returns in two countries in the same tax year. The basic idea is that Country A (say) where the income is sourced, gets first dibs on taxation. After that, Country B may tax that income, but the filer may claim tax paid in Country A as a credit against taxes due for that income. (Typically, the country where the income is sourced is also the country where the taxpayer resides, but that's not always the case.) If the tax rates in Country A are higher than in Country B, then the filer may owe no tax at all in Country B on the income earned in Country A.

There are other potentially complex issues regarding taxation of interest and capital gains, but the basic idea is the same: the treaty determines who gets the first tax-bite, and after that, any taxes paid to one country can be claimed as a credit against taxes owed in another.

Re: "current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[Rujiel]

Prove to me that those ads had any effect at all, even assuming that they really were russian, and were political. Until then, your crisis is bullshit.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[DaRyuujin]

I have to disagree, Hilary and the DNC working together to ensure she got the nomination over Sanders is what put the last nail in the coffin so to speak. If they didn't work against Sanders and he had a fair chance I believe he could have beaten Trump in the Election. Hilary was a very disliked candidate with a lot of political baggage (not no gossip "omg did you hear what __ said X years ago!!" baggage) So yea the Democrats, or more specifically the DNC and Hilary really did screw the pooch.

Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending"

[DaRyuujin]

The crisis is keeping the Russia story alive.

Crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

Current crisis over Russian spending?

Bullshit. It's a crisis over Trump being President.

Just cut it out.

Who am I kidding? Just keep obstructing, fuckers.

Re:Crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas are bad, your actions are bad. Your intentions are good, but the logic behind them is stunningly bad. As one example:

"Trump is Hilter, therefore let's take away all the guns from the lawful owners"
"Trump is against late-term abortion, therefore force him to bring in more Sharia "refugees" that treat women as chattel"

When things don't go your way, you make shit up about Russian collusion, the racist White people, Trump Hitler (because, he literally is!!!1!), and freedom-loving jihadists.
When that doesn't help either, the Demonrats turn to bike locks and assault rifles to actually murder the people they disagree with.

signed: ze Russian, obviously.

Re:Crisis

[johanw]

> Demonrats

I didn't know that one yet. :-)

Re:Crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up you fucking racist twat

Paging Hillary 'Jan Brady' Clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia Russia RUSSIA!

Re:Paging Hillary 'Jan Brady' Clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we've officially broken Poe's law.

Sounds familiar

[quonset]

This is exactly what the banks and Wall Street firms did from 2005 - 2007. Every time a bill came up which would require them to be more transparent, to have greater oversight applied, to hold more cash on hand, they fought it tooth and nail. Their claim was all those "rules" would defeat their competitive nature in the financial markets. Don't worry. They knew what they're doing. It was different this time.

We saw how that worked out.

Now here we are, with Facebook having done the same thing and having to face up to the reality of why those rules were necessary. It will be interesting to hear the excuses Zuck throws out. He's already given his faux apology and faux promise to make things better. All that's left is for him to flip us the middle finger like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein have done and the circle will be complete.

At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what the banks and Wall Street firms did from 2005 - 2007. Every time a bill came up which would require them to be more transparent, to have greater oversight applied, to hold more cash on hand, they fought it tooth and nail.

As far as I'm concerned if their negligence and don't give a shit as long as it makes them money attitude got us here, then they can go to hell.

May the company swiftly go bankrupt and may the founder die penniless.

I'm sick and tired of companies thinking they have no duty beyond profit. For crying out loud, we live on the same planet, and it might be nice if we started giving a damn for those that come after us.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding.

You mean the investigation that's yet to turn up a shred of evidence in the nearly a year it's been running? That one? It's "expanding" because it's a wild goose chase. It's "expanding" because they still haven't found anything.

If the Republican party had a spine, they'd terminate this complete waste of money. Imagine how much money being wasted on this Democratic witch hunt could instead have been spent on helping Puerto Rico.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

**REALLY?????** This an ABSURD comparison. The bankers created and benefited from the financial crisis. Facebook did **NOT** engineer the throwing of the election, the Russian government did. That comparison is completely bonkers, go take your meds.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

**REALLY?????** This an ABSURD comparison. The bankers created and benefited from the financial crisis. Facebook did **NOT** engineer the throwing of the election, the Russian government did. That comparison is completely bonkers, go take your meds.

Oh yes Facebook did try to influence the election.

They just failed.

Re:Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion

That investigation is about to become very embarrassing for Democrats. There was more pro-Hillary advertising by foreign nationals than pro-Trump.

Re:Sounds familiar

[coofercat]

Exactly, and if you were one of those financial companies, or now facebook - it's be far more news-worthy if you *didn't* fight those laws/rules, or indeed actually lobbied for them.

Of course Facebook fought any and all rules or laws that might impede their ability to operate without any oversight. Why would anyone think they'd do differently?

Ads

[Neuronwelder]

I don't give a dam if they track me. Many times, when they just put ads on the sides, I have clicked on one to find something that actually interests me. I know that it takes money that I don't have to run all kinds of sites that I watch. And they can keep advertising.. I just hate it when the screen goes dark and an ad gets pushed in your face forcing you to find the hard to find "x".

Re:Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is an ad-merry-go-round.
A plugin that puts your tracker in a pool and shared with 100 other users. Ads aren't going away, like you say, they're too useful (not to us, but the businesses that post them). If instead of trying to get rid of ads, we made the worst parts of them useless (the tracking bits), then those bits will disappear. If your ad is no longer unique to you, it doesn't give them useful information, they'll stop putting in the effort to try to collect it (or try harder - either way it costs the ad companies more).

Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia! Russia! Its always Russia!

Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

colluded with Hillary's campaign:

http://truepundit.com/wikileaks-bombshell-podesta-emails-prove-facebook-colluded-with-hillary-clinton-during-election/

So now we're supposed to believe that about $50k worth of Facebook ads tilted the election to Trump despite the fact Hillary spent over $1.2 billion during her campaign?

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to figure out if it's illegal for Facebook to collude with a candidate.

But any way...in key states you do not need to swing many votes to win. In Michigan for example you'd only have to swing about 5,800 votes out of 4,800,000 votes cast (I'm rounding) and Clinton could have won. Sow enough doubt about Clinton to keep her supporters unenthusiastic, fire up Trump's base, and you could easily move 0.12% of the vote in Michigan.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

... what does this failed candidate have to do with anything?

Quit it. She lost.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Hognoxious]

There's a proverb concerning a nail, a horseshoe, and a kingdom.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Mashiki]

The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.

You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary? That even when Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton she still lost the debate? Nah, none of that is her fault we know that. She keeps screeching and saying so, it was all that Russia's fault. And she would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been those pesky kids from 4chan and their cartoon frog.

The most hilarious thing was pepe. Even the hillary loving pundits in Canada went on and on about how stupid she was trying to make it into something.

Re: Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[guruevi]

The worst thing is that her own lawyer argued against Facebook disclosing or blocking ads from the âoeevilâ Russians. Something tells me the collusion with the Russians backfired on her.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[cmseagle]

So now we're supposed to believe that about $50k worth of Facebook ads tilted the election to Trump

No. No one (reasonable) is pointing to this specific $50,000 ad buy as the reason Hilary lost. This is evidence see that a foreign power attempted to influence an American election by exploiting racial divides. The natural follow-up question, then, is did that foreign power do so in collusion with the candidate they were assisting?

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! Russian attempted to influence an American election by exploiting racial divides! Don't they know that's the Democratic party's job?

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[cyn1c77]

You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary?

Wait, are you talking about Clinton or Trump?!?!

I get a kick out of the comments that Clinton was unlikable and thus not electable. Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?

Also, why do you have to LIKE your president? They're not going to be your friend or significant other. You're never going to even see them in person during their tenure. They just need to be effective, not likable, but effective at their job.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?

First, Trump didn't say he believes he can grab people by the crotch. His words were that they (the women) LET you (him) grab them.

Second, yes, yes I do believe people like, or at least liked Trump more than Hillary. Most people don't just like or dislike someone over one issue. People also do not value the same issues equally. What are "deal breaker" issues for you is not the same for the next guy. Maybe Trump's attitude towards women turns you off, but to somebody else that doesn't really matter as much as Hillary's attitude towards those who dare not vote for her (the "deplorables" comment). When it comes to track records, Trump being a newcomer to politics makes him more likable to someone who has been in politics for as long as Hillary was. When it comes to policy, many people liked what Trump offered (this is only about people liking the policy, not that the policy will or will not work)

Third, you're right that being effective at the job is important. And THAT IS WHY PEOPLE LIKED TRUMP. Trump sells himself as the successful businessman, as someone who would be great at the job. You can of course pick at all the details that contradict this claim, but that's what he sold himself as, that's what people saw him as.

What did Hillary sell herself as? Nothing as likable as Trump. Contrast "Make America Great Again" and "I'm with Her".

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Mashiki]

Wait, are you talking about Clinton or Trump?!?!

That one should be obvious. Trump didn't rig the primary, and didn't turn around when caught give the person a very cushy job inside of their campaign did he.

I get a kick out of the comments that Clinton was unlikable and thus not electable. Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?

She was very unlikable. Really what was her selling point? Female? That's all she really ran on, she pushed identity politics, political correctness, and other garbage that mainstream has already had enough of. Why do you think when Trump went politically incorrect then doubled down on it he soared with people. Oh and "literally grab you by the crotch" is a great example of a lie being told, and idiots repeating it.

Also, why do you have to LIKE your president? They're not going to be your friend or significant other. You're never going to even see them in person during their tenure. They just need to be effective, not likable, but effective at their job.

You don't. Though it makes them better at their job. So here's the question, you have a businessman who has a likeable face, is successful, seems to genuinely like "that rustbelt worker" vs the women who can't even figure out why she's down in the polls, pissed all over those workers who were struggling, and was a dismal and ineffective sec. of state who also pushed a lie that benghazi was because of a video. This isn't rocket surgery. And the doubling down of the left with more identity politics guarantees him a second term.

Hell ask yourself this question: What do the democrats even stand for? What did Clinton stand for? If you can't answer either one of those without resorting to a search engine you just got your answer as to why she was unlikable, unelectable, and unless they get their head out of their ass did a bang up job of killing off the democrats after Obama's run.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.... both candidates were corrupt. I think we all knew that going in. It was a depressing choice.

You backed the corrupt, brain-dead-incompetent candidate by the ex KGB agent who currently runs Russia and he got elected.

Good for you.

I'd say he was Putin's sock puppet, but Putin isn't controlling him. He's not a puppeteer, he's an arsonist. He just lit a match in our election, and is laughing while the whole country burns to the ground.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[budgenator]

... This is evidence see that a foreign power attempted to influence an American election by exploiting racial divides. ...

You've made two errors, first attempted should be conducting an ongoing campaign and American election should be American Society.

Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook...

[Dread_ed]

If our own politicians hadn't made their careers and reinforced their power and control for the last 100 years by exploiting racial divides this wouldn't be a problem...

always fight rules like that

[HermMunster]

Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads, even ones considered manipulative. Agreeing to rules without fighting means they are allowing the authorities to determine what we see and hear. Fighting those rules is the only right thing to do.

Besides, every bit of this Facebook outrage means that the left doesn't believe Americans have brains enough to make a proper adult decisions. Hell with that attitude why even allow Americans to vote at all?

Re:always fight rules like that

[Brett Buck]

I am sure that they would welcome that, if they though they could get away with it.

Re:always fight rules like that

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the black-ish people who take over a stage at W&M and shout "liberalism is white supremacy"?

Yeah I'm pretty sure they don't want you to vote. Otherwise they don't get what they want.

Re:always fight rules like that

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads, even ones considered manipulative. Agreeing to rules without fighting means they are allowing the authorities to determine what we see and hear. Fighting those rules is the only right thing to do.

Besides, every bit of this Facebook outrage means that the left doesn't believe Americans have brains enough to make a proper adult decisions. Hell with that attitude why even allow Americans to vote at all?

Superman was supposed to fight for truth, justice, and the American way. Do we now as a country not even aspire to that standard?

Is it now, anything is fine, as long as it makes a buck?

Is it now, lying your arse off, to manipulate the easily duped people to vote against their best interests fine and dandy and something we should not care about?

No, I'm sorry, but I just don't believed Fake News is what the founders had in mind when they thought up freedom of speech. It might be different if it was at least correctly attributed, but it wasn't. It was pure lies designed, well designed, to weaken our democracy.

And it worked very well, and will likely work even better in the future with AI and machine learning helping to further hone the practice.

It is sad to see our nation fiddling while its democracy burns. I see no real solution. It would be nice if everyone could extract the signal from the noise, but I rather think the noise is going to get worse. After all you don't have to manipulate what every voter thinks. You just need to just manipulate enough of the easily mislead ones. I wish I could see a solution, but I don't. At best we might reduce the level of failure. Either way, while fighting the last war, won't win the war, we still must fight it.

Accuracy matters. Truth matters. Completeness matters. Without all three, democracy is basically just a bunch of monkeys trying to write Shakespeare in that both are doomed to fail.

Re:always fight rules like that

[Anonymous Coward]

>Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads

That is not true. Political advertising is heavily regulated and the rules are strict regarding foreign countries trying to influence US elections.

Obama Administration

[Anonymous Coward]

I have it on good word that the Obama administration, during reelection campaign, employed supplied Facebook with a list of previous donors and employed them to come up with a list of new donors. Maybe Hillary didn't win, because she didn't fight dirty enough.

Shocked

[Bodhammer]

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.

"Fake" and "Russian"

[leretard]

"Fake" and "Russian" are words that should trigger your ears to turn off nowadays. If only the majority of the population was educated to resist such overt conditioning.

So the ads were fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or was someone just tourettes-ing leftie buzzwords when writing that headline?

careful of what you wish for..

[Anonymous Coward]

you wanted loose or no regulations to make some extra ad revenue.

now look at the fucking mess we all have to put up with for 3+ more years.

"Current crisis?"

[ScentCone]

There is no "current crisis" over $100,000 worth of across-the-spectrum noise-generating BS ads run by Russia in an election season when the Clinton machine spent or exercised on her behalf over $2 billion. It's only a "crisis" in the sense that it's one of the only absurd little threads that Clinton and her followers can still cling to as a reason she lost, short of having to finally confront the fact that she's an awful person and a worse candidate into which to invest $2 billion dollars and the phony hopes and dreams of a number of people in a couple of coastal cities.

The more that media outlets scream it's a crisis, the more you can be sure they've got nothing else to try to trot out.

Fake ads = bad, true ads = good!

[Anonymous Coward]

So it seems the only problem here is that ads were "fake", right? I guess noone would've objected Russians spreading true ads, talking how great Clintons are and how horrible Trump is. After all, Russians were always our friends! Well, until they went against Hillary.

Trump the victim?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waaa waaaa waaaa..... Ukraine tried to stop Trump getting elected..... it's all a plot of Ukraine, in cooperation with the UK..... and the NFL..... and Mexico... and the deep state..... McCain, rogue Republicans....waaaaa waaaa waaa.

It's pathetic to hear yet another whining excuse.

Yeh, Trump is such a victim, we get it. And he's endlessly bleeting about how America is a victim.

Re:Trump the victim?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be a victim to point out something dishonest or wrong that someone else did? Victimhood has nothing to do with someone else doing wrong or illegal.

Another day, another fake Russia story on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

/. is now a mouth piece of DNC and a source of fake news.

This site turned to shit fast. It's not even worth visiting anymore.

Firms Don't Like Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11:00

GOD Killary lost DEAL with it

[Anonymous Coward]

GOD Killary lost DEAL with it!! Stop trying to start WW3 to distract from how shitty she is.

Those Russian Ads Supported Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean the Russian ads that supported Hillary?

Liberals project. In this case, Hillary broke campaign laws, and lied saying that President Donald Trump broke those laws.

Truepundit is a conspiracy-pseudoscience site

[Anonymous Coward]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Though they do occasionally publish a legitimate story, some are conspiracies. This source also currently delivers news straight from the Daily Caller which has a strong right-wing bias. Most articles from True Pundit have anonymous authors. This source has also been flagged for false information and has an unproven claim. Simply not trustworthy.

It's the kind of site that dreams up "Pizzagate" conspiracies when it's not too busy reposting other conspiracy loons' vague "new world order" conspiracies.

Re:Truepundit is a conspiracy-pseudoscience site

[Mashiki]

Thing is...those emails are all real.

You can read Sandberg's emails in the podesta chain right here. You can read Zuckerburg coming right out to bat for Hillary and the DNC to boot, right here. You can try screeching over the source all you want, but those emails are cold hard facts. Facebook came right out to bat for her.

Re:Truepundit is a conspiracy-pseudoscience site

[Anonymous Coward]

The claim was that Facebook colluded with the Hillary campaign. The "evidence" you provide shows Zuckerberg working the the campaign. That is not the same thing and I you know it. However, I bet you'll continue to spread this lie.

Re:Truepundit is a conspiracy-pseudoscience site

[DaRyuujin]

To be fair if you actually look into the emails there are valid questions to be raised, the fact that police refused to even acknowledge that is a big driving point of Pizzagate. It's fake? Ok well why don't you investigate the legitimate questions and show us, just saying "nothing to see here move along" raises more suspicion. Police should have investigated to make sure it was fake, they never did. "conspiracy theories" While usually BS HAVE come out to be true (usually much much later) so if there is evidence to support something that major, even if it's a little...why not look into it?

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Facebook wouldn't budge. It warned that FEC proposals for more political ad disclosure could hinder free speech"

Free speech? I thought Facebook was pretty adamant about not being a place for free speech with their banning people they deem to be using speech they don't like or agree with politically. Or was that Twitter? Or both?

They didn't get an exemption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that mean they're liable? Why haven't they been taken to court already?

Honestly. Can it be MORE fake news than this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this even talked about? Have the entire US gone full retard?

Re:Honestly. Can it be MORE fake news than this?

[oh_my_080980980]

Yes, yes the media has...

Amazing....

[oh_my_080980980]

$100,00 spent over 3 years in a presidential campaign that cost $2.4 billion. That's some bang for your buck!

*fake Russian ads? Holy Putin your soup Batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I suppose those aren't real Russian brides, now Alfred?

Happily charged for the ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook had no problems charging $$$$ for the alleged Russian ads and didnâ(TM)t mind them .... until Hillary lost.

Funny how they still have no issue with all the other political ads that were paid by outsiders but in favor of the loser party.

Ad spending by foreign governments is a crisis?

[zerofoo]

Russians buying ads to influence our political system is a problem? Really?

What do you call President Obama outright stumping for Macron in France?

Last time I checked President Obama was not a French citizen and not eligible to vote in their elections. Isn't that unwanted foreign influence in an election?

Re:Ad spending by foreign governments is a crisis?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Obama did so openly. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's head of state, came to the US to argue against the Iran deal before Congress with Republican support against Obama, and that was not a problem. Vladimir Putin, making a public statement as the Russian head of state for or against either side, would be no great issue. Russia, as a foreign power, is not permitted to buy advertising related to our elections at all, and in doing so they also violated election laws that demand political ads be sourced: "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message", "This message paid for by Patriots for Trump PAC". These messages did not come with statements "Paid for by the Russian Federation", which would speak to motives and credibility about statements being made. (The PACs and campaigns involved, are, of course, forbidden from accepting foreign money. Republican operatives tried - and failed - to sting the Clinton campaign with foreign money). These rules were implemented to help prevent false flag messaging: "I'm Candidate Jones, and I hate America!", absent an actual voice recording, loses a lot of punch if followed by "Paid for by Smith for Government".

Re:Ad spending by foreign governments is a crisis?

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... you don't see any difference between a public endorsement and an astroturf campaign by a foreign intelligence service?

        ?

Re:Ad spending by foreign governments is a crisis?

[DaRyuujin]

In a way isn't the public endorsement worse? Who you think holds more influence random ad's on facebook or the previous POTUS? I'd be willing to bet Obama's words were MUCH more impactful towards another nations election that a few ad's on FB were.

Still grasping at straws

[zerofoo]

"At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding"

You anti-Trumpers are really hanging onto this one. A mere days after a guy shoots up Las Vegas authorities announce no ISIS ties to the gunman.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Yet a year into this Russia!, Russia!, Russia! investigation has produced nothing showing improper collusion with the Trump campaign and Russian authorities or agents.

How much time and how many millions of dollars are you willing to throw into the toilet trying to find something - anything to pin on Trump?

Maybe it's time to just let the constitutionally elected president do his job.

Re:Still grasping at straws

[Anonymous Coward]

The investigation is ongoing. Investigations don't release details of what they've discovered until they end. There have been numerous leaks, and they've all suggested the investigation has turned up some pretty awful stuff.

Re:Still grasping at straws

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been numerous leaks, but all they've done is suggested the investigation is grasping at straws, throwing search warrants every which way in an effort to grab on to whatever they can. Face it, the whole Russia thing is a giant witch hunt. There was no collusion with Russia. It's fake news. It never happened. There's a reason the investigation hasn't turned up anything yet, and it's because there's nothing to turn up.

No surprise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" makes clear when Facebook set up their advertising system.

It all checks out.

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means that Zuck is colluding with the russians.
And it's known that Facebook was helping Clinton, it means that she was colluding with russians to appear bad and get Trump elected so that he could destroy America from within.

Trump is a russian agent, Clinton was colluding with russians, Facebook is receiving money from russians.
Everything make sense now.

Bloomberg Was Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloomberg through that Killary was going to win.
Bloomberg was wrong, and can't stop bitching about it.

Excuses Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

The way CNN have been talking, you would think that Facebook had conclusive proof of it. Now you're saying it doesn't?

more Phony Baloney.

 

Fake Russian ads, rather than

[eric_harris_76]

Fake Russian ads, rather than fake Democrat and fake Republican ads?

I'm not sure there's anything to get excited about.

Did I miss something?

Worth a laugh.

[DaRyuujin]

I just came here to say I chuckled when I read "the current crisis over Russia". Beating the hell outta that dead horse, is there so much desperation that this is where they end up? The big bad Major Russia influence and collusion to tip the election was....REPORTS (of course from a Anon source) of a pin drop amount of money buyings ad's on FB, a whopping...three thousand? LMFAO it's really getting kind of sad now. Hilary you lost because you're a horrible person and corrupt to the core, not because of Russia, not because or racism. Because you were the worst possible candidate to run in 2016 for democrats, so bad in fact you had to rig the nomination to make sure you were the candidate over the more popular Sanders.

Farcebook!

[iq145]

They do ONLY what is in their own interest... financially!