Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Says 126 Million Americans May Have Seen Russia-Linked Political Posts (reuters.com)

Facebook said on Monday that Russia-based operatives published about 80,000 posts on the social network over a two-year period in an effort to sway U.S. politics and that about 126 million Americans may have seen the posts during that time. Reuters reports: Facebook's latest data on the Russia-linked posts - possibly reaching around half of the U.S. population of voting age - far exceeds the company's previous disclosures. It was included in written testimony provided to U.S. lawmakers, and seen by Reuters, ahead of key hearings with social media and technology companies about Russian meddling in elections on Capitol Hill this week. Twitter separately has found 2,752 accounts linked to Russian operatives, a source familiar with the company's written testimony said. That estimate is up from a tally of 201 accounts that Twitter reported in September. Google, owned by Alphabet, said in a statement on Monday it had found $4,700 in Russia-linked ad spending during the 2016 U.S. election cycle, and that it would build a database of election ads. Facebook's general counsel, Colin Stretch, said in the written testimony that the 80,000 posts from Russia's Internet Research Agency were a tiny fraction of content on Facebook, equal to one out of 23,000 posts.

370 comments

  1. Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am beyond sick and tired of Slashdot trying to push the "Russians influenced the election!" BS that the left has been pushing. It's fake. It never happened.

    Who cares if they bought ads on Facebook? Does it matter? Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!

    The thing that caused Hillary to lose more than anything else is likely her shady dealings involving her email server and the FBI "investigation" into it. An investigation that could still be restarted as it's becoming more and more clear that one campaign did, in fact, have dealings with Russia: the Democrat's.

    1. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      Astroturfer.

    2. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by sound+vision · · Score: 0

      Watching them go wild on this one will be amusing. Do you really think the campaign is limited to Facebook?

    3. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Obviously not, but I think it's amusing how they desperately try to infer that while also tossing around the oddly specific notion that only $50k was spent in total.

    4. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      How much do you get paid to post that on every post that questions the leftist dogma? Clearly you get paid by the post and not the word.

      I'm looking forward to 2018 when the Democratic Party is yet again taught the lesson of 2016: you've lost the support of the common people. Continuing to cry "Russia! Russia!" is not helping.

    5. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's just both look forward to that and see what happens, shall we?

    6. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Van Jones picked up a new gig posting stories to Slashdot about his big nothingburger.

    7. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really think this is the first time they've tried to influence an election? How do we know they were trying the same thing when Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush 1, Reagan,etc were running for president?

      This seems like standard cold war tactics. And do you suppose America wasn't trying to do the same to them? Reading most posts these days, sounds like they've completely taken over the conversation at many places.

      Try going to reddit and say something bad about communism or socialism.

    8. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like me parroting a cock in a stupid zuckerburger bitch mouth I once saw on faecesbook

    9. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't get enough of Russia spin, but I don't have a Facebook account so I get all my news from rt.com.

    10. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information warfare operator.

      How's the weather in Fort Meade today?

    11. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by george14215 · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your service, Comrade!

    12. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So did the Russians do better by spending $50K on Facebook, or getting their cut on the $12M that Hillary and the DNC spent on the Trumped-up Dossier?

    13. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't get enough of Russia spin, but I don't have a Facebook account so I get all my news from CNN."

      TFTFY

    14. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those Russian intelligence services are just idiots compared to a genius like you!

    15. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the left, it's the 3rd way. The whole Russia conspiracy theory was invented to distract people from how the DNC rigged the primary against the left candidate, Bernie Sanders.

    16. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who cares if they bought ads on Facebook? Does it matter? Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!"

      Yes. Especially deplorable, stupid, redneck morons like you.

    17. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      If 53,667 person would have voted differently the outcome of the election would have been different.
      A few bucks is indeed sufficient to turn the election.

      Couple that with gerrymandering, fraudulent voter deregistration and whatever else that has been proven and it paints a pretty clear picture.

    18. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!

      Not really. I just think whoever voted for him is straight up dumb. Dumb as shit.

      How's it shakin', Shit?

    19. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 53,667 person would have voted differently the outcome of the election would have been different.
      A few bucks is indeed sufficient to turn the election.

      Couple that with gerrymandering, fraudulent voter deregistration and whatever else that has been proven and it paints a pretty clear picture.

      Only if you use lefty accounting rules. Apply those to anything real and you'd end up behind bars.

    20. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who cares if they bought ads on Facebook? Does it matter? Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!"

      Yes. Especially deplorable, stupid, redneck morons like you.

      Thank heavens we've got wise illuminati like you to show us the true path! Just keep it up, that's all you gotta do...

    21. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With the many millions of dollars spent by both parties on ads that are basically in our faces 24/7 for over a year prior to the election, Anyone thinks a few facebook ads would actually change someone's vote is a complete moron.

      Even with that, nobody has been able to demonstrate that any specific ads would influence a voter one way or the other. The fact that the media won't show us these ads tells me that the content of the ads doesn't support the spin.

    22. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lets see the content of the ads and , Lets who who paid for them.

    23. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's just both look forward to that and see what happens, shall we?

      Here's my prediction. The blue areas will remain blue and the red areas will remain red. The areas on the fence may tip a little toward the blue. And the DNC will wring their hands and scream bloody murder that somehow the Russians kept them from taking over the whole House of Representatives and all the state legislatures.

    24. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The commies in the Supreme Court are currently deciding whether those "lefty accounting rules" should apply.

    25. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!

      I don't know. I'm not sure that I care that much, and I see that aspect of your point. But logically speaking...

      ..."Russians influenced the election!"...It's fake. It never happened.

      Who cares if they bought ads on Facebook?

      The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

    26. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming you don't leave your bubble much.

    27. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, lets.

      You are expecting a Blue Wave. It's going to be, at best, a Blue Status Quo... Very possibly it will be a Blue Slaughter. I still don't know what the Democrats stand for, how they want to improve the country, or if they even care about the country.

      Mostly they exist anymore to scream about Trump, and pander to victimhood narratives.

    28. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. I just think whoever voted for him is straight up dumb. Dumb as shit.

      I didn't vote for Trump. I pissed my vote away on a third party. I have to admit though, it was worth four years of Trump just to get to see the smug assholes in the mainstream media get their kicked teeth in on election night. Their reaction is one I will cherish till the day I die and it's the gift that keeps on giving. It's been a year and the DNC apologists are still so butt-hurt that they're desperately grasping for excuses for why Hillary got handed her walking papers. The Schadenfreude warms my heart. Every Trump tweet stirs them up once again. Three years from now they will still crying about how the election was rigged.

      The funniest thing is that they are so damn stupid that they don't realize that they are setting the precedent for the kind of behavior to expect if they ever get their act together and win another election. Make sure you remember these tantrums when it comes right back at you.

    29. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by PoopJuggler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah I'm sure the intellectual powerhouses that make up the Trump voter base couldn't possibly be influenced by propaganda, or the QVC channel.

    30. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It’s not known how many people saw the Instagram ads, though Facebook has confirmed that the collection of 3,000 ads might have been seen by as many as 10 million people. The ads promoted both sides of sensitive political and social issues like gun control and Black Lives Matter in an effort to create political discord.

      This seems to have worked on influencing liberals the most, as they are the ones up in arms and trying to make it out to be one sided.

      https://www.recode.net/2017/10/6/16439368/instagram-russia-ads-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-election-donald-trump

    31. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Kierthos · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it was just harder under previous Presidents. (Well, depending on how far back you go.) I mean, under Reagan, social media didn't exist. Did the Russians not want Reagan elected? Sure. They wanted a second Carter term. Not because they liked Carter. They just thought he would be a weaker President.

      Same deal going on here. It's not necessarily that the Russians liked Clinton. But given the choice between Clinton and Trump, hell yes, they were going to try and swing voters towards Trump. He's an easily manipulated President with no governing experience, prone to running his mouth off on topics he doesn't have the slightest clue about.

      Plus, you know, maybe the Russians have blackmail material on him.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    32. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      Slashdot use to be technical and not politically polarized. Now they are just like the mainstream media that makes crap up and only wants to push one side of things.

      A Trump campaign organizer was arrested for lying to the FBI but Hillary Clinton wasn't arrested for lying to the FBI, why not?

    33. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You libtards have a very selective memory. Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI, and she tried t o steal the election by getting CNN and others to fake poll data, and news stories as well as the VIDEO of many votes flipping FROM Trump TO Clinton, not the other way around.

    34. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Trumped-up Dossier is an act of subversion and sedition against our country. That's the entire reason Clinton's guy charged the Trump people, to claim they were first.

      It's time for Sessions to criminally charge members of the mainstream media with Sedition and Treason. CNN needs to be top of that list.

    35. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with the Presidential election, since the electorate is divided by states.

    36. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      So did the Russians do better by spending $50K on Facebook, or getting their cut on the $12M that Hillary and the DNC spent on the Trumped-up Dossier?

      The issue of course, is based on who's ox is being gored.Many ofthe same people who say "so what", regarding the Kremlin's activity would be very upset if North Korea were doing the same to their Dear Leader Trump.

      Or Hillary anything.

      The question needed asked is beyond the situation of two flawed candidates. The question is why an adversarial state would put effort into electing one over the other.

      As well, the adversarial efforts are running out of steam. Its hard to respond to Paul Manafort's Ukraine and Russian connections with "But crooked Hillary's emails!" and have people not laugh at you. Its becoming very hard to deny connections when Mueller has already obtained the first conviction, in one George Papadopoulos.

      And let us not forget that old Crooked Hillary didn't start the Dossiers you have such a hardon about - it was a Republican who prefers to not be known. And let's not forget that it is apparently just fine with you about Trump's people meeting with Russians to get dirt on old Crooked Hillary. But that's probably "different". So just keep on whining about old Crooked Hillary. It now provides much amusement, Tovarisch.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL. “most of the ads made no explicit reference in favor of Trump or Clinton,” and that some ads were purchased after the election." Swing and a miss.

    38. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!

      They didn't vote for him because they saw ads.

      They voted for him because they *shared* core-identity targeted ads.

      Which their friends and loved ones then pointed out to them were *fake*, or argued with them.

      Some apologized, and deleted it.

      Most doubled-down, argued back with more fake news. Defending their post and therefore Trump.

      After this repeated itself dozens of times per person, at the end you had a person willing to vote for Trump, despite his string of high profile campaign mistakes that would disqualified any other candidate.

      But at that point, everybody's outspoken uncle was voting for Trump out of pure spite to the "elite" people on FB who kept calling him out, pointing out his flaws and lack of knowledge of politics and reality.

      Russia used Facebook not to get people to vote for Trump, but to divide and radicalize Americans against one another.

    39. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your desperation is showing, especially after Manafort got indicted. Are you saying the FBI indicted him for absolutely nothing?

    40. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Dread_ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apologies in advance for any offense you or anyone else takes from reading this.

      I don't want to hear "The Russians influenced the election" and I don't want to hear "The Russians didn't influence the election." Nor do I want to hear about how many people, potentially, figuratively, or exaggeratedly could have might possibly seen a snippet of an ad or post by a "Russian operative."

      I don't want to hear your commentary, Zuckerberg's inane prattling, any political pundit's repackaging of this bullshit, and certainly not any journalist's outright lies about this.

      I just want one absurdly simple and easy thing:

      SHOW ME THE FUCKING ADS AND COMMENTS YOU SAY ARE FROM RUSSIANS.

      Really. Is it that hard?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    41. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I am beyond sick and tired of Slashdot trying to push the "Russians influenced the election!" BS that the left has been pushing. It's fake. It never happened.

      I on the other hand look forward to reading these stories. Specifically the comments and heated thoughtless debates about them. Thankyou.

    42. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      You sound like those assholes that say taking a knee during the national anthem is really about ass raping a wounded soldier, or whatever stupid shit they make up instead of listening to what the protest is actually about.

      And, just like when people defend the right of rich, entitled, and incredibly privileged people to protest the national anthem on a nationally broadcast stage, so you should defend to the death the right of other people to identify a problem in their community and protest against it. If you don't you're not only a hypocrite, you're completely un-American.

      See, to many Americans, voting for Hillary was like a combination of shitting diarrhea on the American flag, urinating in George Washington's mouth, and converting to Canadianism all at once. So instead of casting aspersions on the people who didn't vote for her, you should be commending them for demonstrating and protesting, on a national stage, the problems they see in their community. They pulled a lever. Kind of like taking a knee, but lots less fanfare.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    43. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least create an account, comrade.

    44. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't get enough of Russia spin, but I don't have a Facebook account so I get all my news from CNN."

      TFTFY

      CNN has become a real joke. I can remember when CNN was where you tuned in for real news all the time. Now their entire webpage seems to be devoted to anything they can find to complain about Trump. I don't even bother to flip on their channel. When their headlines are items of no more importance than "Trump left the table without putting his dishes in the sink", you know they have jumped the shark. Their page is mostly empty of any real news items and particularly empty of anything not on the SJW agenda. I am completely at a loss to find a news source that reports facts without looking for a reason to show how offended they can be.

    45. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      That's a big IF you got there. I have a few to throw back at you.
      If voter ID was required everywhere, that margin would be bigger.
      If the mainstream media was impartial instead of actively trying to shove Hillary over the line, that margin would be much bigger.
      If the Democrats had selected anyone but Hillary, they probably would have won.
      If the mainstream media hadn't given Trump 10x the free airtime compared to what they gave to the rest of the Republican candidates, as well as softball interviews prior to him winning the primary, it would have been a different Republican candidate against Hillary, and she would have been slaughtered. But the mainstream media wanted Trump to win so Hillary could face him in the election, knowing he was weakest candidate.
      If the FBI and DOJ weren't politicized, Hillary would have been in jail and unable to run for president.

    46. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am beyond sick and tired of Slashdot trying to push the "Russians influenced the election!" BS that the left has been pushing. It's fake. It never happened.

      Who cares if they bought ads on Facebook? Does it matter? Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!

      The thing that caused Hillary to lose more than anything else is likely her shady dealings involving her email server and the FBI "investigation" into it. An investigation that could still be restarted as it's becoming more and more clear that one campaign did, in fact, have dealings with Russia: the Democrat's.

      AMEN! Who looks at the friggen ads anyway! If someone is a such a tool that they let their core political philosophy be shaped by ads...

    47. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real spin should be on the number of idiots that can't do their own research and make their own decisions. The number of people that just read the headline and that's it.

    48. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      you're completely un-American

      You bet your ass I am un-American. You guys got fucked over by politics since the 1950ties. Voting for a troglodyte like trump as a 'reaction' is certainly not going to change that.

    49. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican that prefers not to be known.

      The Washington Free Beacon website confirmed it originally retained the political research firm Fusion GPS to scour Mr Trump's background.

      The website is largely funded by Republican billionaire Paul Singer.

    50. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with Facebook and Russians buying adds along with creating thousands of fake pages and members. Quite frankly nothing Clinton did matters. If she actually lied like you said she would be next to George Poppanotgonnasayhislongassname. The reality is that she didn't lie. There are no videos of votes flipping from Trump to Clinton because that is completely fictitious.

      I love how Trump and his ilk masterfully redefined fake news to be any news they don't agree with rather that this stuff which is completely made up.

    51. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Democrats need to get their shit together. Quite frankly given how Republicans are dismantling this country it won't take long for most people to realize that there is definitely a lesser evil.

      Most of the people affected the most by Trump's attempt to cripple Obamacare are his own constituents. The same with medicare games they are playing. It won't take long for the environmental regulations they have lifted to start killing people as well. All it will take is for one lake or river to catch fire again and we'll remember why the EPA was created to begin with. Most of us do remember but a lot of conservatives think increasing profits for dying industries is more important.

    52. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash for ya, we're not at war, thus it is not possible to commit treason. As for sedition, I don't think that word means what you think it means. CNN has in no way tried to break up the union.

      You should stop listening or watching Info Wars. Their war is on the informed populous. For every one thing they actually get right they have hundreds of stories that are just made up conspiracies. Their Sandy Hook conspiracy is truly deplorable. This lead to death threats against people that survived the Vegas shooting so now they have to endure two tragedies.

    53. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What tantrums? While there was a lot of butt-hurt originally these days the only people I see still talking about Hillary are Republicans defending Trump. The DNC apologists have been rather silent for a while as Bernie keeps trying to build support for his platform. He sticks to the present and future rather than living in the past.

      From what I've seen people like Bill Maher are advocating the Democrats fight dirty, down at the level of Republicans because clearly it is a winning strategy. So you've got some liberals that think you need to stay on the high road to head off your last paragraph while others are so desperate they feel they need to stoop to the lowest of lowest political fights.

    54. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you point out that the Russians were interfering with the election, the Russians win!"

    55. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Two people correctly identified what's wrong with the way things are run: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. One had a nomination stolen from him. The other got elected President.

      This isn't hard but the Hillary camp cannot seem to get their brains around people not wanting to elect someone who wanted to continue the problems.

    56. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Manafort's actions that had nothing to do with Trump' s campaign. Yeah, I think I'll keep laughing as your political world crashes and burns.

    57. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop lying. The British intelligence agent and pee-party dossier did not come into existence until AFTER the Republicans stopped working with Fusion GPS. This âoedossierâ apparently was then used as a pretext by the Obama run FBI to secretly spy on their political opponents. The US has become a third-world banana republic.

    58. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're ridiculing someone about the fact that he was indicted, do you even know what he was indicted for? None of the charges related to the Trump campaign. They're all related to past endeavors in Ukraine and money laundering.

    59. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      My whole post is a joke, pointing toward the absurdity of the things that Americans call politics these days. So a joke, but nowhere near the breadth and scope of the joke that is the US government. You hit the nail on the head with 1950. The Pentagon Papers put this year as the first public overtures of four consecutive presidents to intentionally create a war.

      Traitors, the lot of them. Conspiring against the American people, lying about their intentions and actions, inventing a war for us to die in: Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and LBJ. Their statues are the ones that should be torn down. Their monuments defaced and destroyed. Their names dragged through the mud and sullied with the truth of what complete shitbags they were and are. Disgraceful, warmongering, murderers of their countrymen. There is nothing lower.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    60. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by thelandp · · Score: 4, Informative
      > SHOW ME THE FUCKING ADS AND COMMENTS YOU SAY ARE FROM RUSSIANS.

      > Really. Is it that hard?

      No, it's not. There are some examples out there. So if you're asking for information, here you go:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

      http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

      What is that hard though, is to understand why your comment got modded insightful.

      If you're demanding no less than the full set of ads involved: it's natural to expect the tech firms involved would hold back, because the whole thing is very embarrassing for them.

      > and certainly not any journalist's outright lies about this

      Aha, herein lies a big part of the problem. Trump has convinced you that "the media" is the enemy, it's all fake news. That is one of the steps that autocrats take, to discredit a free and open press, to remove one of the points of accountability on them.

      --

      -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
    61. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      it wasn't the ads, folks. It was the trolls pretending to be Bernie Sanders fans - who presumably wanted the Democratic platform, and more, but were fine with tossing around 'Killary' and "Warmonger', etc. and pushing for 'anybody but Hillary' to the extent that Jill Stein got enough swing state votes to throw the election. And those 'Bernie Supporters' got nothing that Bernie wanted.

      Now some of those trolls were paid by the Russians, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were paid by various right-wing American groups. But either way, it's fraudulent - and troubling.

      As far as the Russia investigations being 'fake', well then why all the obstructionism? There's obviously something they're hiding - and it's not just Manafort's money laundering - since Trump would throw him under the bus in a millisecond. Sometimes I think the most 'reasonable' explanation is that Trump's ego can't withstand even the hint that he didn't win in a landslide and somehow the Russia investigation - combined with the fact that he knew they were pulling for him, and that the Russian provided Podesta/DNC emails helped him - is too much for him to tolerate. So he tried to make it go away, and dug himself a deeper hole. Sometimes. Most times, I go with - yep, Putin's got stuff on him. End of story.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    62. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

      I am beyond sick and tired of Slashdot trying to push the "Russians influenced the election!" BS that the left has been pushing. It's fake. It never happened.

      Apparently, it did? What motive would Facebook have to say it happened otherwise?

      Who cares if they bought ads on Facebook? Does it matter?

      I thought you just said it didn't happen?

      Does anyone seriously think people voted for Trump because they saw ads from Russians?!

      I mean it seems plausible when you consider how stupid the average Trump supporter has to have been to.. you know, have supported Trump.

      The thing that caused Hillary to lose more than anything else is likely her shady dealings involving her email server and the FBI "investigation" into it. An investigation that could still be restarted as it's becoming more and more clear that one campaign did, in fact, have dealings with Russia: the Democrat's.

      So Trump's campaign manager and foreign policy advisor's have just been changed, Jr. admitted meeting the Russians etc.. But her EMAILS!! REEEEEEEEEEE

      So glad to be Canadian right now.

    63. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the media has made the job of convincing the masses that they're mostly pushing bullshit pretty easy.

    64. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there was a lot of butt-hurt originally these days the only people I see still talking about Hillary are Republicans defending Trump.

      What the fuck are you talking about? Hillary wrote an entire book about why losing the election couldn't possibly be her fault. Her sour mug was all over the media hyping it just a couple of weeks ago.

    65. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      It's fake. It never happened.

      And typical for your persuasion you think that calling it fake dismisses all of the evidence. It doesn't.

    66. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      This seems like standard cold war tactics.

      Aggressive foreign powers offering to trade political dirt for ease of sanctions?

      No, that's not standard. Shame on you for justifying that in the name of your chosen political party. There are things bigger than whether Obamacare is repealed and whether you get a 0.005% tax cut. Get with the program.

    67. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Anyone thinks a few facebook ads would actually change someone's vote is a complete moron.

      Anyone that thinks ads don't affect them or others is a complete moron.

      And yeah, reading an absolutely fake news article about a politician that drags them through the dirt just might affect someone. Duh?

    68. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      First, without the full set of ads and comments, and the meta-data about who they were targeted at, there is no context by which to evaluate the efficacy nor the intention of these purported meddlers in our elections. You, you simpering sheep, seem content eat whatever is fed to you and swallow it whole. I, on the other hand, don't trust you, the NY Times, or the Philly Inquirer as much as I trust actual factual data, presented without filter, cherry picking, or commentary.

      In my opinion, this is what the fourth estate is there for, hard to get facts and a check on the powers of government. Unfortunately, every modern journalist sees it differently and most of the people in the US are too busy chanting along with their chosen echo chamber to concern themselves with facts. Cest la vie; doesn't mean I am going to join you morons in bailing water into the ship though.

      Now that we are on the subject, I have been convinced about the media's outright lies since, oh about two decades before Trump was a reality show star, and I had my suspicions well before that. I reached this conclusion by multiple avenues:

      1) Knowing firsthand the events being reported on and watching the absolutely false representations made by the media.
      2) Knowing journalists.
      3) Knowing humans.
      4) Watching the news, once.
      5) Reading history.

      I guess from your commentary you believe everything that MSNBC and Fox News put up, eh? The medial never lies, right? They are our ally in all things, like super heroes, but with more humility, right? They wouldn't have an agenda of their own, nor would they be politically oriented and willing to put their political beliefs ahead of facts, nor would they sensationalize things to inflate their own coffers of advertising dollars, nor would they get anything wrong, even if it is completely contradictory to another story about the same incident, right?

      If you are an avid consumer of media and you aren't interdicting and filtering everything you see with a very squinty and extraordinarily jaundiced eye....god help you, you poor simpering imbecilic fool.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    69. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      You mean Manafort's actions that had nothing to do with Trump' s campaign. Yeah, I think I'll keep laughing as your political world crashes and burns.

      Hold on there AC - Appaently you know the entire case against Manifort inluding the all of the evidence taken in the raid on his apartment. So Are you in the FBI, or one of the Prosecuting attorneys working for Meuller? Anyhow I'm certain Manafort and the FBI would love to talk to ypou at length about how you know everything about the case. Leaker perhaps?

      Or are you one of the "Absolutely zero evidence" people?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    70. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't know what the Democrats stand for

      Oh, that's easy!

      "Trump is bad because Trump."

      That's their entire message these days.

    71. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the libtard false flag troll

    72. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]
      http://www.philly.com/philly/n... [philly.com]

      So....literally exactly the same stupid shit that any normal conservative org would post? The only net effect being the Russians saved the conservative political operation at large a few grand out of several billion total spent?

      Aha, herein lies a big part of the problem. Trump has convinced you that "the media" is the enemy, it's all fake news. That is one of the steps that autocrats take, to discredit a free and open press, to remove one of the points of accountability on them.

      Y'know, saying "autocrat" instead of "FASCISTHITLERTURBONAZI" like you really want to doesn't make you less of a moron. And the media *is* ridiculously biased, now much more than ever.

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641
      https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/10/25/bias-1000-minutes-trumprussia-collusion-vs-20-seconds-hillaryrussia

    73. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary Clinton is a liar whose policy stupidity killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people across the middle East. That doesn't qualify anyone for a promotion, regardless of gender.

      Try again

    74. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      My whole post is a joke

      Now that I read it again, I see it too. Stay strong.

    75. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm in the 50% of the US population without a FaceBook account so I didn't see those ads.

      <sarcasm>
      But it sounds like time to bring back literacy tests for voting - if you have a FaceBook account or a Twitter account you can't vote because, well, some bad people might have run ads you saw and you're not smart enough to know the difference.
      </sarcasm>

      But I find it very interesting that we don't hear any complaints about other foreign "influenced" ad buying. As defined in the US code related to foreign interference in the election process, a "foreign" individual includes anyone not residing in the US legally. So by that definition any and all campaign contributions and advertising paid for by money from illegal immigrants is the same violation and as such fits the left's definition of collusion.

      So if say a group like Latino Victory buys an ad featuring minority kids chased by a truck on behalf the Democrat candidate, then shouldn't we investigate to find out if Latino Victory receives donations from illegals and is therefor in violation of US campaign laws?

      Wonder why know one seems to be concerned with those violations?

    76. Re: Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it works on the right the most because they cower in their rooms scared that their local sherrif is working to instill shari law. Got them so scared they voted for trump.

      Or think of it this way. The USA worked very hard to isolate and contain the USSR. during the cold war. Putin has found a way for the USA to isolate and contain itself. You guys are currently fucked and the laughing stock of the rest of the western world.

    77. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Methadras · · Score: 2

      This stupid trope that Trump supporters or Republicans/Conservatives are dumb is nonsensical twaddle and really needs to stop. You think democrats/leftists are paragons of intellect? Really? Your comment only cements the idea that you are about as shallow thinking as the comment you made. It's easy to say, it's easy to think. It required very little intellectual brainpower to formulate and insert into this conversation.

    78. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw this ad over and over and over and over and ones just like it; I'm sure Hillary and the DNC spent millions (vs 50k) and did it influence my vote? No. It pissed me off because I got tired of seeing it so much.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=67Z8A2Jo4Wg

      Russian influence on our election...really.? No. So far it seems irrelevant unless you're going to talk about what's going on with from the DNC interacting with Russians too. What did influence my vote was what people in Haiti had to say about the Clintons, the lack of any accountability for what happened in Benghazi, what the DNC did to Bernie, and everything else that was already known BEFORE Hillary even ran. I wanted to vote for Ben Carson.. but the same media that continually was telling everyone they had to vote for Hillary as their only choice smeared him as an idiot... a Yale and John Hopkins University School of Medicine graduate and *neurosurgeon* idiot . A second choice would have been Bernie.. didn't get that option either. I'm REALLY hoping for a 3rd party president next term... BOTH major parties need to die the way of the Wig and No Nothings...

      A more important discussion is the role our media is playing in trying to coerce people to do and vote a certain way instead of simply reporting what happened. I'm so sick of having to check sources to determine if a 'news' story actually happened or if it's just someone's opinion dressed up as news or a second level reporting someone else's opinion as fact that I've stopped watching.

      I'm sick of politics...can Slashdot go back to being about technology?

    79. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So by that definition any and all campaign contributions and advertising paid for by money from illegal immigrants is the same violation and as such fits the left's definition of collusion.

      Agreed. What is this two wrongs make a right?

      So if say a group like Latino Victory buys an ad featuring minority kids chased by a truck [washingtonpost.com] on behalf the Democrat candidate, then shouldn't we investigate to find out if Latino Victory receives donations from illegals and is therefor in violation of US campaign laws?

      I don't know about the laws you'll need to consult a lawyer.

      I was not aware of Latino Victory until 30 seconds ago, but they appear to be a US-based Latino lobbying group. If they are US-based then no it's not the same thing. If they are funded by non-US citizens then yes that seems possibly analogous, to my IANAL mind, to accusations around Trump.

      I really don't get your point though. Because there's some other impropriety, we should ignore all of them? NO we should investigate all of them. So go fight to get Latino Victory investigated (if that's your beef), and stop fighting to prevent the investigation around Trump. Sheesh.

    80. Re:Enough with the Russia spin by volmtech · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but apparently Hillary's voter base was, that's what they are mad about.

  2. What made facebook work so great by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    was that it wasn't covered by existing disclosure rules. So folks could pour money into it with impunity.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What made facebook work so great by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disclosure rules? WTF? The filter should be on the receiving end. The Russians have their agenda (and it's more about trolling us than overpowering us), and the media has their agenda (which is more about indoctrinating us than educating us). F them all, it's not like any are trustworthy anymore. It's the info that matters, not the source.

      Anyone who gets their information from the Bookface, or sucking at the media's (left or right) teat, deserves what they get. People need to take personal responsibility for educating themselves with diverse viewpoints, and using that to create a worldview based on knowledge and belief informed by root principles. If you can't filter disinformation from your inputs, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:What made facebook work so great by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      So folks could pour money into it with impunity.

      Indeed. If we let people go around speaking with impunity, we will lose our freedom.

    3. Re:What made facebook work so great by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      If you listen to Facebook long enough, you'll find that they claim to have over 8 billion members... 126 million "views" sounds like another number they feed their paying advertisers.

    4. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the mandatory "If only everyone were wise and good, this wouldn't be an issue" point.

      Meanwhile, back on earth, this is an issue. Saying "people need to take personal responsibility" is just a way of dodging your own responsibility.

    5. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you want information spoon-fed to you like a baby? Too lazy to do your own diligence? You sound like a typical whiny dullard.

    6. Re:What made facebook work so great by doctorvo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah yes, the mandatory "If only everyone were wise and good, this wouldn't be an issue" point.

      Well, it's a basic assumption of both liberalism and democracy that people are "wise and good" enough to run their own affairs, decide who to vote for, and to make their own decisions about the truth of other people's speech. Unfortunately, large parts of the American left don't believe this to be true.

    7. Re:What made facebook work so great by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      That handy 'both sides' arguments once again proves its usefulness.

    8. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People need to take personal responsibility for educating themselves with diverse viewpoints

      But they don't, but they vote anyway. From that you get candidates like Hilary and Donald. How's that workin' out for ya?

    9. Re:What made facebook work so great by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Anyone who gets their information from the Bookface, or sucking at the media's (left or right) teat, deserves what they get.

      What would you suggest as an alternative? If you rule out the media and social media, how do you get your news?

      I can agree with you on social media, but what is a better source than professional journalists?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you can't filter disinformation from your inputs, you're doing it wrong."

      There's this multi-billion $$$ industry devoted to ensuring you're doing it wrong.

      And if not you, the vast majority of your neighbors.

      You may have heard tell of.

    11. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you let hostile foreign powers broadcast propaganda to your citizens with impunity, you will lose your freedom.

    12. Re:What made facebook work so great by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Youtube.

      I'm not saying that's what the GP is suggesting, but most times these days when someone says 'do your own research' what they mean is 'watch the same poor quality Youtube videos as me'. That's certainly where my friend found the conclusive evidence that the earth is flat.

    13. Re:What made facebook work so great by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Good point, how could I forget the home of the Rationals.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even journalists have biases. The ability to detect bias when you digest information should be taught throughout education.

    15. Re: What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Only if your citizens have had their critical thinking skills neutered via reduced education, constant advertising, organized religion and leaders that scream "Think of the children!"

    16. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I viewed a russian facebook post / ad
      last October and HAD to go out and vote for Trump.
      ((((( -- Really Folks..!!?? ))))

    17. Re:What made facebook work so great by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Anyone who gets their information from the Bookface, or sucking at the media's (left or right) teat, deserves what they get.

      What would you suggest as an alternative? If you rule out the media and social media, how do you get your news?

      I can agree with you on social media, but what is a better source than professional journalists?

      I dunno. I get my news from ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, BBC and Breitbart. I can see some folks getting twitchy about the first 5 sources, and others freaking about the last one.

      Fox News is a comedy channel, so not on my source list. I get no news from Facebook at all ever. Of course I'm only there because I have to be on the FB dungheap. Guess that's my cross to bear.

      Some people ask why such an eclectic mix of news sources?

      There is a lot of news happening in the world. No one group can cover it all. Just the decision on what news to cover will show inherent bias. It cannot be helped. So exposing myself to several sources gives not only more information, but also a great way to expose the biases of any one outlet.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:What made facebook work so great by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They sound fine, although the GP would dismiss them as "media" I guess, except for Breitbart. While the others at least attempt to be fair and publish corrections, Brietbart is just pure fake news. Not an alternative point of view or coverage of stuff that the others miss, just pure made up bullshit.

      I managed to ween my friends off Facebook and on to WattsApp. Lesser of two evils perhaps, but I don't use Facebook any more.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because large parts of the American right prove conclusively time and time again that they are effectively retarded. They can't math, they can't science, all they are capable of is thoughts and prayers and oligarchy.

    20. Re: What made facebook work so great by bestweasel · · Score: 2

      You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

    21. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone is karma-whoring here after making themselves look like a total moron recently. You certainly know your audience in this crowd, as that kind of drivel is guaranteed upvotes in this conservative echo chamber. A comment with actual insight would do more than just lay blame at the feet of someone they don't like.

    22. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, large parts of the American left don't believe this to be true.

      You've indicated that a the left isn't "wise and good" enough to believe that others are wise and good enough, so you're also in the group of people that believe other people aren't "wise and good".

      Since I've indicated you're in the group of people that believe other people aren't wise and good, I am also in the group that doesn't believe other people are wise and good.

      Shall we continue this race to a bottom where everyone thinks everyone else is shit?

    23. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, large parts of the American right don't believe this to be true.

      Fixed that for you. And, oh, a reference.

    24. Re:What made facebook work so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rebuttal.

  3. Re: The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shows the power of Zuckerburg that he can compete with thousands against billions.

  4. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    My virgin eyes!!!! Why Facebook why didn't you protect me from the interwebs. I so was going to vote for Hillary until those adds showed me that Trump was a kind hearted, attractive, beautiful haired, honest, intelligent, and amazing guy. I was duped.

    1. Re: Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can always tell old guard Slashdot folks from new Slashdot folks as to whether they believe FUD is a real force at play in people's minds. It wasn't positive ads for Trump. It was FUD.

  5. Non equivalence by Archon · · Score: 1, Redundant

    126 million accounts != 126 million individual users.

    Considering over 90 million eligible voters never bothered to,
    in fact the US experienced voter turnout @ 20 year low,
    (even if) 126 million individual users != 126 million voters.

    And considering those 18 and otherwise ineligible to vote,
    (even if) 126 million voters != 126 million votes.

    So this # of accounts seems rather meaningless.

    1. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course even a single user forming impressions based on the deliberate manipulations (read propaganda) of foreign powers is not something we want going unchecked in our system of governance. Far too many are willing to dismiss this on partisan gut feeling alone, even here on Slashdot. The most powerful government on earth can be steered by opinion and those can be easily manipulated.

    2. Re:Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even TFA?  Not only does it not mention 126 million accounts, it doesn't mention 126 million votes either.  It says 126 million Americans.  May be you don't realize, but they can finger print individual users even across multiple accounts.  You seem like a russian troll to me that is trying to make things more confusing.

    3. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes because Facebook adds are such a powerful opinion changer. I'm still upset at those 10 things Obama didn't want me to know and all those secrets doctors have been hiding from us. Its amazing how effective Russian adds are to! All the other fake news online and in the media has no effect but those Russian adds are really effective!

    4. Re:Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, then they should just publish their methodology behind how they arrived at that number so we all know what we're talking about, hmmm?

    5. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the U.S. government trying to rig elections in virtually every other country on Earth since post-WWII via the State Department, NGOs and CIA? Do you think that should be checked?

    6. Re: Non equivalence by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      May - Weasel word: A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated. This can enable the speaker to later deny the specific meaning if the statement is challenged. Where this is the intention, use of weasel words is a form of tergiversation.

      Weasel words can be used in advertising and in political statements, where it can be advantageous to cause the audience to develop a misleading impression.

      tergiversation: To evade, to equivocate using subterfuge; to obfuscate in a deliberate manner.

    7. Re:Non equivalence by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And this couldn't have had any influence at all on the historically low voter turnout?

    8. Re: Non equivalence by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is it's being framed as a partisan issue, because the Democrats desperately want to find something or someone to blame for Trump winning besides themselves. Russian interference in US elections is a problem, and that's something everyone should agree on, red or blue. It should be looked into, and it should be stopped.

      Did it have anything to do with Hillary losing the election? Almost certainly not. 80,000 posts sounds like a lot, but over a two year period on a site like Facebook? It's tiny. Facebook probably had well over 80 billion posts over that timeframe (and it may be even closer to a trillion, if Facebook's daily active users are to be believed), many of them political from both sides. The whole thing is being cast as a red herring to distract from the real reason Hillary lost, which was Hillary.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re: Non equivalence by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      You spend a _lot_ of time making baseless accusations and otherwise lowering the tone of the debate.

      So who exactly pays you for your quite diligent astroturfing & trolling work? You have nothing interesting to say, so I just don't believe you're doing it for fun.

      Is it a Democrat party affiliated PR firm? Some minor fiefdom of the US military industrial complex? Neoliberal international capitalists as symbolized by Soros (who may or may not have any actual involvement)? Russian military/intelligence services? Chinese military/intelligence services?

    10. Re: Non equivalence by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Proposal: the word "lawyer" be replaced by the more aptly descriptive word "tergiversator".

    11. Re: Non equivalence by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Certainly the tone of divisive recrimination, minus any actual significant policy differences, is likely to have lowered voter turnout. But I think it would be pretty optimistic to blame that on any one actor.

      It seems cultural. I don't have any solid answer for why it's happening. I suspect it had something to do with common people's access to information expanding at an astronomical rate, while at the same time most other traditional measures of freedom are rapidly declining.

    12. Re:Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to the way you formatted your post, you should be executed immediately in the most painful way imaginable. This isn't tumblr.

    13. Re:Non equivalence by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that many of those users saw those posts after the election.
      Not to mention that Russia-linked does not automatically mean false (if a post is "Russia-linked", whatever that means, and true, where's the problem?).

    14. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy cow, I feel like I just discovered the last sane person on the Internet.

    15. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There WAS Russian collusion in the election.

      Clinton's campaign paid $9 million for Russia to make up fake stuff on Trump to use in the campaign. This is now a known FACT. They also used that fake crap to justify wiretapping the Trump campaign DURING the campaign, also FACT. Comey in the FBI even used the same sources, paying them, to continue gathering fake crap on Trump using taxpayer money.

      Not only do we have collusion, we have the FBI paying for it to help Clinton, and Obama using it for warrants to wiretap an opposition campaign. He knew it was fake information when provided to the FISA courts to justify the wiretaps.

      The best part... The guys responsible, and who found out Clinton took money to approve Uranium One deal (again Russian collusion) were Muller and Rosenstein, who are now the ones pretending they aren't corrupt and "investigating" Trump for collusion with Russia, when they knew THEY colluded with Russia themselves back in 2009-2010 to hide it from the public.

      This has become such a joke at this point. I like the people pretending all this hasn't become public and proven already. They look like complete idiots.

    16. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good word comrade, though in over 50 years I've never heard an English person use it.

    17. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. It is not the Democrats. The more I listen and watch, the more I believe Trump truly is an outsider. The shadow government, all the rest who own keys to the United States, those in government, expected and wanted Hillary. It is the establishment that want to find something on Trump.

    18. Re: Non equivalence by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Low voter turnout, you say? It couldn't have anything to do with the parties putting up the most flawed, offensive, and polarizing candidates in the history of foreverness, could it?

      Naaaaaahhhhh.....

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    19. Re: Non equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Are we going to make a list of everyone that spent FIVE THOUSAND dollars to influence the election? Its gonna be a long fucking list. It starts with everyone that bought a round-trip plane ticket.

  6. They say how many people but not how many uniques. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real question is how many unique views were served for each ad and how many ads there were total. 126 million people seeing one silly racist political meme one random afternoon is nothing to panic about, and certainly they'll try to spin this revelation as nothing more than that. But 126 million people being immersed daily into an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation... now that my friends, that right there is how you sew destruction throughout the minds of an entire population. That is how you fundamentally pervert the perception of reality of an entire social class. That is how you sever friendships and turn families against each other. That is how you topple a government. That is how you start a civil war. That is something worth panicking about.

  7. so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by turkeydance · · Score: 0, Troll

    i just knew it wasn't my fault

    1. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      STFU we know they're paying you too.

    2. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You voted for trump, because you're an easily-bamboozled ass wipe.

      That may or may not be your fault. I mean, it could be your parents' fault for all we know. After all the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

    3. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      So that's why I started drinking a liter of Vodka a day!

    4. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Go suck Hittler's petrified cock you Putin cum hole.

      I remember learning about slab allocation on slashdot. Who let you in? I bet you are proud of yourself.

    5. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

      You should worry about that fact.

    6. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I remember learning about slab allocation on slashdot. Who let you in? I bet you are proud of yourself.

      I remember learning about cows and the GNAA on Slashdot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:so THAT'S why i voted for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, the old "you don't agree with me, so you are a moron" stance. That worked out well for you the last election. Let's see what happens in a year.

  8. Re:OH NO!!!! by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Or maybe you have been tainted but you're just too stupid to trace cause to effect. Or maybe you're just one of them.

  9. Article misses so much information, on purpose? by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, they tried to say the advertisements promoted Potus Trump, now "Divisive" ads. Divisive is code for Hillary and Bernie.

    And if we are only talking Divisive advertisements, what about ShareBlue or Correct the record? How many millions did these companies pay to change social media, 50 Million? 100 Million? How much did the DNC and related political pacs pay, 500 Million?

    And 80k from Russians is a big issue vs a billion?

    Wag the dog indeed. If you are still blaming Russia for Trumps win, you still haven't learned. Nobody liked Hillary and Bernie only ran as a Democrat to get on the stage.

    This two party system is a problem with all the money is funneled into 2 people. WTF, All that money into 2 parties. When vary widely on so many issues, 2 parties don't cover everyone. I have no idea how, but wish we had a multiparty system to stop this "us vs them" tribal cultural war. We got Democrats voting Republican for financial issues, and Republicans voting democrat for social issues. Libertarians, Socialist, Communists, etc, its a clusterfuck.

    1. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 0

      you realize there are multiple attacks based on the way a person thinks right? 1) if you are a Republican, you make Clinton seem so evil and Trump seem so good that you use pragmatism to vote Trump. 2) you are a butt hurt Bernie bro and they foment fake hate against Clinton in the Democratic side to make you vote Green (another Russian plant) or sit it out... Add all that up and you get Trump winning the EC by 80K votes across 3 separate states that happen to have been reliably blue in presidential elections for the last 24 years.... If you want a multi party system then you need to design a system that supports it...the US Constitution supports only two. Any more are spoilers....we really are a zero sum scenario in US politics.

    2. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by DogDude · · Score: 0, Troll

      And if we are only talking Divisive advertisements, what about ShareBlue or Correct the record? How many millions did these companies pay to change social media, 50 Million? 100 Million? How much did the DNC and related political pacs pay, 500 Million?

      Hey, Dickhead, does "ShareBlue" or "Correct the record" have their own nukes? There's a big difference between PAC's and hostile foreign nuclear nations.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THOSE ARE NOT RUSSIA, MORON. God you're dumb. It's illegal for undeclared funds to be used.

    4. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This two party system is a problem with all the money is funneled into 2 people. WTF, All that money into 2 parties. When vary widely on so many issues, 2 parties don't cover everyone. I have no idea how.

      The answer is quite simple. The long term equilibrium configuration of an elected government where the winner takes all in a single round of voting, regardless of percentage, and winning is determined by the "first past the post" method. is a two party system. This can be proven mathematically and those interested in the details will find many fine sources with a few searches.

      but wish we had a multiparty system to stop this "us vs them" tribal cultural war.

      That will not be possible without major changes to the US constitution to implement proportional representation, where seats are allocated by votes and representatives of any party that gets enough votes for at least one seat will be granted that seat with more seats going proportionately to parties with more votes. Although it's still possible for a single party to win an outright majority in such a parliamentary system, in practice that rarely happens and it's not the equilibrium state in any case. The more typical situation is for the party with the most seats to "form a government" by making deals with other parties to secure votes for a prime minister from the majority party with other parties in the coalition receiving other benefits, typically ministerial level seats.

      We got Democrats voting Republican for financial issues, and Republicans voting democrat for social issues. Libertarians, Socialist, Communists, etc, its a clusterfuck.

      A parliamentary system would better harmonize and accommodate the various nuances of these positions. Unfortunately, that's not the system that we have here in the United States, mostly for historical reasons. You see, when the United States was founded there hadn't really been a democratic republic on any serious scale for thousands of years. Oh sure, you had city states here and there but nothing like a federal republic system. The most common form of government at the time was monarchy with varying degrees of absolutism and sometimes accompanied by an assembly of noblemen and (nominally) selected commoners but with much practical power remaining in the hands of the monarch. Many aristocratic people in Europe and elsewhere thought that democracy could not work on such a large scale and that United States was doomed to fail. Being that we were first nation to give Democracy a serious try on a large scale in a long while, basically since the early Republican period of the Romans, we were bound to get some things not quite right and those mistakes are now more or less baked into the system now 241 years on.

    5. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Funny

      But the three million voters were either dead or illegal.

      Because, as history has proven, 99% of corpses vote Democrat.

    6. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Informative

      .the US Constitution supports only two.

      Where does it say this in the constitution? There are over 20 parties listed on national elections and a few people in the federal government who belong to neither of the two major parties.

    7. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I learned something until now in my life, it is that it takes a lot of efforts to build something but it is very easy to destroy anything. USA seems amnesic, how much for 9/11? Just some people barely able to flight plane. How many mess CIA did on a low budget? You should know better than anybody.

      But here, it definitely is more than 80k. It should take not very long for an half competent person to check the capacity of Russia and to know 80k does not check.

    8. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While agree the two party system could be improved various ways with additional parties and run-off type voting or other modifications, do not blame it for the reason Hillary lost or was a candidate. I.e. it was because Hillary was a bad candidate and everybody in the DNC was so afraid of the Clinton's power machine that nobody could think to have a real sit down with Hillary and tell her not to run.

      I never use Facebook, so the Russians didn't somehow "mind trick" me into voting for Trump. Trump definitely can be a jerk, but I felt like I was voting for a jerk over voting for a criminal. Hillary came off to me as a criminal who thought she could fool me with her completely unbelievable email server stories. The real reason she had those servers is because she wanted to keep her backroom dealings from the prying eyes of the public.

      And as I see the Russian investigation - Trump's friends were gathering evidence to get Hillary thrown in prison. That's the 'big" Russian connection, nothing more. Which to me seems entirely plausible that Hillary would have gleefully dealt with the Russians somehow if it served her purpose.

      Just like she dealt with the big banks because it served her purpose then, regardless of the fact that every Democrat I knew or could see was spouting off as to how horrible the banks were. Not to mention the countless "occupy Wallstreet" protests!

      Just how two-faced she is - At least Trump was honest about accepting the results of the election, which Hillary et al seems to never have done.

    9. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 parties don't cover everyone

      No system on the planet to date does! but this 2 party one does narrow the scope significantly in favour of those with great power and who/m wish to retain that power to control everyone.
      Flipping a coin one way or the other doesn't make the damnedest of differences in a 2 party system. Complete lock-in to control the masses, however easily subverted that may be, it will always remain the same until, as the french used to say, 'Viva la revolución".

    10. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have no idea how, but wish we had a multiparty system to stop this "us vs them" tribal cultural war. We got Democrats voting Republican for financial issues, and Republicans voting democrat for social issues. Libertarians, Socialist, Communists, etc, its a clusterfuck.

      The problem actually stems from our system of government electing representatives for a specific district (or state). It results in a bunch of winner-take-all elections. The founding fathers chose this method because they wanted elected representatives to have a direct connection to the people they were representing. The downside is that a vote for someone who has no chance of winning (a third party candidate) is a wasted vote.

      In countries which use parliamentary elections, everyone casts their votes, and the members of parliament are allocated in proportion to the vote. So a vote for a third party is not "wasted" (as long as that party gets enough votes to obtain one seat). The downside of course is that no single member of parliament feels bound to a particular group of people or represents any particular region.

      If you wish to retain the representative model while having fairer outcomes, you first have to realize that there is no such thing as a perfectly fair election system. All of them can result in counter-intuitive results where the "winner" doesn't really enjoy as much support among the voters as the loser(s). People are upset about the Electoral College "stealing" the election from Clinton. But if you add up the votes for all the parties and independent candidates, the liberal parties (Democrat, Green, Independent, Socialism and Liberalism, Bernie Sanders) add up to 49.38% of the votes. Adding up the conservative parties (Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Evan McMullin) gives 50.06%. So the correct winner of the 2016 election was in fact a conservative candidate even if you ignored the Electoral College and did a straight vote tally.

      But different systems result in a different frequency of counter-intuitive results. Unfortunately the plurality wins system the U.S. uses is one of the worst. The frequency of "bad" results can be minimized by use of an instant-runoff voting system. Where each voter ranks all the candidates in order of preference. You then successively eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of #1 votes. Voters who voted for that candidate have their vote reallocated to their next highest choice of the remaining candidates. And so on. Until just two candidates are left, and the more popular of them among all the voters is the winner.

    11. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hey, Dickhead, does "ShareBlue" or "Correct the record" have their own nukes?

      They're both agents of the Democratic party, which held the nuclear football at the same time as this.

      Also, if you bother to read the indictment, it seems to cover payments while working for Podesta's company, long before he joined Trump's team. That said, all the cards aren't on the table just yet. They've most likely got more charges coming that the public doesn't know about just yet.

    12. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Dickhead, does "ShareBlue" or "Correct the record" have their own nukes? There's a big difference between PAC's and hostile foreign nuclear nations.

      That's a really funny way to spin it, since the people leading those groups all have (((Dual Citizenship))).

    13. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Domestic institutions are governed by US law. It's illegal for foreign institutions to interfere in US elections.

      More importantly, the Russian interference is carefully planned trolling. It's created huge divisions that won't easily be healed. Your country has been split multiple ways, with extremists coming to the forefront. You have literal Nazis marching in the streets and murdering people in broad daylight, you have a POTUS under criminal investigation and tweeting every day about locking up his political opponents. Division is everywhere and is damaging your country...

      And all you seem to care about is what you have been told to care about, two has-been politicians. Shouldn't you worry about the people actually in power right now? Or the prospect that the next election will be similarly fucked up by Russian political trolling? Nah, just label some more people, I'm sure that will fix it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US Constitution supports only two.

      Not at all. Sounds like you need a refresher course in civics. Please refrain from voting until you take said course. Thanks.

    15. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      First, they tried to say the advertisements promoted Potus Trump,

      [citation needed]

      now "Divisive" ads.

      No, that's what the claim has always been. Either you're a moron who missed it, or a disingenuous douchebag who's making shit up now.

      Divisive is code for Hillary and Bernie.

      It's not code for hillary and bernie, it's code for showing made-up ads about hillary and bernie that made them look more reactionary than they actually are to people who would never support their policies, in an effort to whip those people into a froth. Targeted advertising normally displays ads about things to people who will be receptive, in order to sell them something. This is the opposite of that.

      And 80k from Russians is a big issue vs a billion?

      We have laws about it specifically because it is a big deal.

      Wag the dog indeed. If you are still blaming Russia for Trumps win, you still haven't learned. Nobody liked Hillary and Bernie only ran as a Democrat to get on the stage.

      Nobody liked Hillary so much that she won the popular vote? You might want to check your logic there, son. It ran away.

      This two party system is a problem with all the money is funneled into 2 people.

      That, anyway, I agree with. However, that doesn't speak to whether this kind of influence should be banned in our elections.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      .the US Constitution supports only two.

      Where does it say this in the constitution?

      It doesn't address parties at all, and that is either a horrible failure of the founders, or a deliberate decision which they made (like others) to keep themselves and their ilk in control of the nation. You know, like initially giving the vote only to landed white males like themselves, or the interstate commerce clause...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      It specifically says on the comment to which I was responding:

      If you want a multi party system then you need to design a system that supports it...the US Constitution supports only two.

    18. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, I saw that, but I failed to address it. See, by not putting limitations on political parties, the constitution left room for the two dominant political parties of the English of the day to spawn two political parties here in 'merica. And they sucked all the air out of the room. If the constitution actually said anything about political parties, it might well say some things that put enough limitations on them that some other parties might be able to get a leg up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by be951 · · Score: 2

      now "Divisive" ads. Divisive is code for Hillary and Bernie

      Divisive just means divisive. That can include driving Bernie supporters away from the polls or away from the democrat establishment. It can also include dividing the country by race, for those who are into that kind of thing.

      > And 80k from Russians is a big issue vs a billion?

      Not sure if you are trying to say that the 80,000 posts that facebook says were created or promoted by Russia-linked accounts cost a dollar each to create/promote/whatever, or if you're intentionally or accidentally conflating "posts" with dollars, but there are a few ways that a small-ish number of political posts could have an outsized impact. For one, by not being constrained by at least having a basis in fact, they can make any claim they want. This has the effect of both creating pressure on the campaign and/or legitimate organizations to play whack-a-mole putting down the false statements and rumors (where the name "Correct the Record" came from) and anchoring a narrative in the minds of many voters. It can also be used to move the dialog in more extreme directions, especially with the highly targeted way it is possible to deliver on social media.

      If you are still blaming Russia for Trumps win, you still haven't learned

      There is little doubt that it was a factor. Mostly likely not the deciding factor, but how big or small remains to be seen. The actual margin of victory was quite small -- around 120K votes across three states out of 129 million (nationwide) cast could have flipped the electoral vote.

      This two party system is a problem

      That's true. Unfortunately, the two parties with all the power are the ones that set the rules that make the system a two party system. Obviously, that makes it very difficult to change, since it means those two parties would have to voluntarily give up power.

    20. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by crtreece · · Score: 2

      by not putting limitations on political parties, the constitution left room for the two dominant political parties of the English of the day to spawn two political parties here in 'merica

      I don't think that's it at all. I think the two-party system is propped up by the majority election system and the first past the post vote counting method. Switching to a proportional representation system, with 1 of the many ranked voting methods would allow third (fourth, fifth) parties to become viable. In addition, problems such as gerrymandering, tactical voting, and "wasted votes" would be less of an issue, likely increasing voter participation.

      Proportional representation at the federal and most state levels would require constitutional amendments, so don't count on that happening soon. Changing the vote counting system starting at a local level is much more likely to happen.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    21. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not sure if it is in the US Constitution; but with first past the post you support bi-party systems. That is proven to be true. The fact that there are 18 other parties is irrelevant. Just like you can have a monopoly, even if there is still some competition left.

      There are way better systems where people would have actually a choice to vote for A, but against B, where tat is now not really an option. There will be things you love about one party and something else with the other party.

      I mean; what do you do when you want only married gay military send to war and more of them?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by stdarg · · Score: 0

      It's illegal for foreign institutions to interfere in US elections.

      No it's not. There are specific actions that are illegal, not just "interfering" which is vague. Otherwise, when are the arrest warrants coming out for all the foreign politicians who made negative comments about Trump during the election?

      Division is everywhere and is damaging your country...

      I agree, I just don't understand what this has to do with Russian ads during the election. If you want to connect this to Russia, you'll have to go further back to when academia became leftist and began training our youth to be cultural Marxists. The division we see today is because there are enough people (though a minority) who believe the institutions of the country are actually evil, have an evil past, and must be destroyed and rebuilt to be good.

      Or the prospect that the next election will be similarly fucked up by Russian political trolling?

      No, I don't think it had any significant effect. I honestly wonder if people like you would care about it if it had ended up favoring Hillary or Bernie? I wonder if Russia was helping to fund BLM whether that would change your perception of BLM (or Russia)?

    23. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Really, limiting the power of the parties is simple...stop subsidizing them by using taxpayer dollars to help them select their candidates (government funded primaries and/or caucuses) and eliminate the ballot preferences for the candidates they select (Republican and Democratic nominee automatically on the ballot in some states, all others need to jump through hoops).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    24. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a really funny way to spin it, since the people leading those groups all have (((Dual Citizenship))).

      [citation needed]

      And bear in mind that the term "dual citizenship" has a very well-defined and specific meaning.

    25. Re:Article misses so much information, on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump definitely can be a jerk, but I felt like I was voting for a jerk over voting for a criminal.

      Speaking of "criminal"... Do tell us how you feel about all of Trump's Mob connections. First the US Mob connections, and then the Russian Mob connections.

      Please, go right ahead.

  10. Let Us Not Dismiss Our Locals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because while they may THINK they are passing, they aren't. Then again, FB. Idiots by definition, so hopeless there.

  11. Re:NOTHING BURGER by Narcocide · · Score: 0

    Astroturfer!

  12. In Putin's Russian Federation . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Mark Zuckerberg trolls . . . you!

  13. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's how you sell bubble gum. Nobody changed their mind on who to vote for based on a facebook ad. If you think someone did, prove it.

  14. Smart russians by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those pesky russians are smart! They can change an election outcome with just an ad! I wonder why US politicians did not think about doing the same.

    1. Re:Smart russians by Theils+Blood+Boy · · Score: 2

      Americans have to follow the rules. If I was going by the places they supposedly spam I'd guess the country is composed entirely of Nazis and SJWs.

    2. Re:Smart russians by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe they are not that smart. How do they know the ads were effective? For all we know they poured $100K into a campaign that didn't change a single vote.

    3. Re:Smart russians by Arzaboa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US has done this all over the world. Talk with Iran. Talk with Grenada. Talk with Guatemala. The list goes on.

      Russia won't allow any of this in their country. They've banned this stuff on Facebook internally because of this.

      This is one of the main reasons the Chinese have "The Chinese Firewall."

    4. Re:Smart russians by manu0601 · · Score: 0

      How do they know the ads were effective?

      We know it was effective because Clinton's supporters said so, and most media backed that story.

    5. Re:Smart russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those pesky russians are smart! They can change an election outcome with just an ad!

      The Russians have long had a reputation for crafty spymasters and clever tradecraft. Fortunately for us, their system has other serious disadvantages which tend to negate these benefits over the long run. Although, in the short run, they can and do get the better of us from time to time.

      I wonder why US politicians did not think about doing the same.

      One of the disadvantages of being a liberal democracy is that occasionally you're obliged to act like one. This means not meddling directly in foreign elections, jailing your opponents at home or making dissidents and other irritating people disappear. Russia authoritarian regimes like them are not bound by such moral constraints.

    6. Re:Smart russians by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Maybe Clinton should have paid the Russians to run her Facebook campaign, then she'd be in the White House.

    7. Re:Smart russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs enemies when you have fox and friends, Alex Jones, Breitbart, etc, etc...

    8. Re: Smart russians by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      Following the rules is easy when you write the rules.

    9. Re:Smart russians by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Americans have to follow the rules. If I was going by the places they supposedly spam I'd guess the country is composed entirely of Nazis and SJWs.

      All I had to do to get that impression of the US was watch Fox news, the liberal media and snippets from a number of popular political YouTube channels from both sides of the US political spectrum.

    10. Re:Smart russians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      An ad campaign plus an army of fake accounts and meme generators.

      It's not just Russia either. GCHQ's manual on doing the same thing was leaked some years back, coincidentally about the same time that 4chan users started adopting the same tactics.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re: Smart russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A penny saved is a penny earned

    12. Re:Smart russians by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Begging the question - Assuming those sources are negative prior to presenting any evidence
      Ad Hominem - Attacking people instead of arguments
      Red Herring - No relation to the post being replied to
      Fallacy of association - Assuming one who uses those sources is ill informed
      This is just a sampling of the fallacies and faulty logic in your post. Now go to your room and don't come out until you have thought about what you have done, young man.

    13. Re:Smart russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bet is that the $100k paid ads were purely for A-B testing of various messaging strategies.

      The actual campaign took place on hundreds or thousands of social media platforms, not just Facebook. The Facebook ad campaign was a way of testing which types of messages took best. That's why it was so small.

      Didn't you notice what a wasteland - basically, the whole internet became, for most of last year? Slashdot obviously, but also news sites, blogs - basically, everywhere more than about a dozen people get together to talk about anything, unless there were strict anti-politics moderation policies in place, was reduced to a hellish troll-infested crater. That was what the Russians set out to achieve. They did an incredible job, but it can't have been cheap.

    14. Re:Smart russians by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      One of the disadvantages of being a liberal democracy is that occasionally you're obliged to act like one. This means not meddling directly in foreign elections

      It is true USA does not have to do that. The preferred way to remove a foreign government is to back a non democratic coup

  15. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be calling for blood. Don't pretend this isn't a big deal. This is already the biggest political scandal since Bill Clinton. A former campaign manager is under indictment. A former advisor has plead guilty to misleading statements about collusion. Whether the president is directly involved or not, it really reflects terrible judgement on his part, especially since many of the people who have caused him headaches have or had open investigations on them.

  16. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Narcocide · · Score: 0

    You just proved it for me.

  17. Social media analytics are bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised Facebook and Twitter are so aggressively pursuing this.

  18. Which silly racist political meme? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    The white-supremacist meme that the unarmed black men shot by the police deserved to be shot by the police?

    Or the BLM meme that the unarmed black men were shot by racist cops?

    But that the cops are racists may encourage the white supremacists because they want the cops to be racists who shoot black persons for no apparent reason?

    Or the BLM view that the cops are indeed racists despite their denials because of the white supremacists wanting the cops to be racist?

    1. Re:Which silly racist political meme? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      No I meant more the one of an already obese Trump from 40 fucking years ago in some sort of tennis action shot, presumably showing himself being physically fit and good at tennis.

    2. Re:Which silly racist political meme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, about that? You're a fscking idiot.

  19. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clearly we need a Federal Fact-Checking Department, to let us know what is real and what is fake.

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly we need a Federal Fact-Checking Department, to let us know what is real and what is fake.

      Cool. No potential pitfalls there!

  20. Do we get to see the posts? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or do we just have to take their word that they've fortuitously found exactly what they set out to look for, from people who are supposedly foreign operatives but apparently are too dumb to cover their tracks?

    1. Re:Do we get to see the posts? by Theils+Blood+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes sometimes we're able to figure out who they are. Just like when they hack us or supply our enemies with weapons. Imagine that.

    2. Re:Do we get to see the posts? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes sometimes we're able to figure out who they are.

      There's no "we" here, which was my whole point. The article is about Facebook, a private corporation with accountability to no one, chock full of employees who live for stuff like this to be true, and who as far as I can tell is just asking us to take its word that it is true.

      That's fine for topics like the percentage of subscribers who post cat videos in a typical month. That's not at all fine for a topic like this.

    3. Re:Do we get to see the posts? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      See the "meddling" posts? And learn that their alleged "interference" is indistinguishable from speaking freely?

      The next thing you're going to ask for is candidates taking sole responsibility for their campaigns, win or lose! Or to see and hear what "Voice of America" does in other countries.

  21. What about other countries? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Russians? I am mad at the Germans too! They are all strange-talkin' ferriners.

  22. and ZERO minds were changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  23. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is already the biggest political scandal since Bill Clinton."

    Exactly correct. I didn't give a shit about who Clinton was getting BJs from and I don't give a shit about fake Russia xenophobia.

  24. Re: The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This proves how powerful Facebook is. They wanted Trump elected, and they got it.

  25. Can't get sucked in by Russian Facebook ads... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    if you don't use Facebook.

    Or anyplace else if you have an adblocker.

  26. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can count the number media items shared by 126 million Americans on one hand. And none of them are on Facebook.

    This "news" is damn marketing campaign.

  27. Re:The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It either shows how incompetent and her campaign was or how horrible of a message she actually had. Either way, she had no place being elected as President. A decent candidate with a coherent message would have wiped the floor with Trump.

  28. Facebook is advertising by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is FB advertising the cost effectiveness of placing inexpensive ads on their service. And they're doing it "for free" by "revealing" the information to a willing press.

    "SEE HOW MANY IMPRESSIONS RUSSIA GOT FOR ONLY $[insert current estimate here]. YOUR AD COULD DO AS WELL!"

    These ads are getting more play now than they got before, most likely.

  29. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People who think Trump is about to be arrested any day now for treason are literally mentally ill. You need clinical treatment. I am not joking or being rude. This is a serious comment.

  30. Re: Article misses so much information, on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently you are not aware of how U.S. civics works since the purported loser actually won and is in the White House.

  31. Since when is Facebook advertising effective? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You know what? I don't remember seeing any political ads on Facebook at all. I'm sure there were some; but who even notices ads any more? How much influence do you really think a handful of Facebook ads really brought in such a contentious election?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  32. That's right, start spilling your guts FB by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Save some face before all these indictments drag you in, too, you complicit via negligence fucks.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:That's right, start spilling your guts FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for convincing advertisers that FB ads really can make a difference and are bang for the buck?

      Twitter didn't seem as successful:
      https://www.theguardian.com/me...

    2. Re:That's right, start spilling your guts FB by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Save some face before all these indictments drag you in, too, you complicit via negligence fucks.

      That will never, ever happen, as Facebook has been grafted onto the NSA spying apparatus. Zuckerfuck could end up in a ditch one day, though, and it could be attached even more securely. TPTB do not respect the rule of law.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. *COUGH* Bologna *COUGH* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another spoonful of 100% pure cow tongue and stomach trimmings...

  34. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an incredible moron you are. You post those links trying to mock the right wing sites that posted it, but THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO SAID IT! It's Michael Moore and your team of Social Justice Ninjas who think the best way to combat speech they don't like is to burn down your local college. Your own deranged brethren are the joke!

  35. All these convenient admissions from Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook has nothing to lose and everything to gain by going along with the Democrat's nothingburger Russia narrative. It actually works in favor of Zuckerberg's ideological and political aspirations to create the perception that Facebook was a hapless tool in Russia's propaganda arsenal. It would work in Zuckerberg's favor to "admit" that the Russians did all kinds of things using his platform, whether or not any of it actually happened. It doesn't hit his bottom line, and if there were any legislative fallout, it would be another barrier to entrants and competition in the ad space more than anything. We're getting played by creatures from DC and Silicon Valley, not Moscow.

           

  36. Re:NOTHING BURGER ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely !
    Three thousand ads,only half before the election, some were for Hillary ! Many were issue ads , not favoring a candidate, at least not explicitly. Where is the real media investigating these things.

    To think 100k$ would be a drop in Hillary's Billion dollar campaign ocean !

    This is just continued media persecution of Trump, there is no Russia story, except the Clintons, with Bill getting 500k$ just before Dept of State signed off on the Uranium deal. And the Russian sources for the infamous Trump Dossier, now paid for by the Clinton campaign, the real Russian meddling in the election.

    And what was the real story or motive behind the Las Vegas shootings? The time line inconsistencies, weird behavior of the local sheriff, looking more like a government operation or cover up. Again, where are the real investigative media?

  37. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by msauve · · Score: 1

    "an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation."

    So, if Facebook ads effect non-US politics, it's all fine, because "USA, fuck yeah!"

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  38. Re:The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is obviously much to powerful and thus the only course of action is for it to be shutdown immediately to save the american people from all current and future propoganda.

  39. Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that always the trick with Putin? Divide and country and conquer it using its own people against it?

    I see Fox and Russians have converged on "blame Hillary Clinton" as the deflection, but more telling is the united nature of the two parties.

    1. Re: Divide and conquer by Reverend+Green · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whatever you do, don't blame the (heinously unpopular for years & years before the election) losing candidate for losing the election. Blame Canada instead!

    2. Re:Divide and conquer by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Troll

      I see Fox and Russians have converged on "blame Hillary Clinton" as the deflection

      Wait. How is identifying the fact that she was a terrible candidate who lost the election a "deflection?" The people trying to deflect are the ones implying that it was the RUSSIANS that made her call half the country deplorable people. That it was the RUSSIANS who somehow made her forget to even set foot in states like Wisconsin even once. That it was the RUSSIANS who somehow made her look her supporters in the eye and lie to them for a year straight about her conduct as Secretary of State. You're confusing "deflection" with "pointing out the facts." The Democrats have been trying to deflect reality ever since the night of the election, and their hilarious Russian Collusion narrative is just part of that, and another stellar example of just how dumb they think everyone is. And that misunderstanding of all the people the Dems hold in such contempt is exactly why they've lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who turned away from She Who Shall Be Queen in disgust.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re: Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not even a real country anyway.

    4. Re:Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot comments rule #23:
      If you don't like the points being made, use your mod points to mark the post as 'Troll'.

    5. Re: Divide and conquer by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, don't blame the (heinously unpopular for years & years before the election) losing candidate for losing the election. Blame Canada instead!

      To be precise, Crooked Hillary lost the electoral college.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love how political teams come up with simplistic nicknames simple people can parrot. Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Crazy Bernie etc.

      This is typical behaviour of a schoolyard bully. It is child-like intelligence at it's peak.

      Have you ever wondered why these people got easy to parrot nicknames? What was the thought behind giving them nicknames and to whom they might appeal?

      That's right. Morons. Parroting morons.

    7. Re: Divide and conquer by nwaack · · Score: 1

      That just shows how incredibly egotistic she and her campaign people are. To just assume you're going to win multiple states without even bothering to campaign in them one single time is the height of arrogance. One of many reasons she lost in the first place.

    8. Re: Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be precise, Hillary conceded defeat.

    9. Re: Divide and conquer by baerd · · Score: 1

      Hey at least we have a multitude of political parties at all levels of government. You should try it sometime, people are more likely to vote on the issues when they have several choices. Where I live we even have a coalition provincial government where the 2nd and 3rd place parties joined together to form the government, ousting the incumbent. In a two party system your issues matter little, so you get what you get.

      --
      I wish I had a lawn.
    10. Re: Divide and conquer by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      Even for presidential candidates there are only 24 hours in a day.

      But I know, the US electorate always votes for the most entertaining candidate, and well, DJT got that angle covered by dominating the news during the elections with his pratfalls.

    11. Re:Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got modded Troll because the moderators think you're not really as stupid as you pretend to be in that post.

      Consider it a compliment.

    12. Re: Divide and conquer by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      To be precise, Hillary conceded defeat.

      But she still lost the electoral college while recieving more votes. Face it, unless you are a Russian Troll, You'd be calling for armed insurrection if a Democrat won th eoffice in the same manner.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re: Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's the weather in Moscow today, Ivan?

    14. Re: Divide and conquer by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about Canadian politics. Do your parties have significant policy differences?

      In America, we get to vote for one faction of the Capitalist Party, or the other faction of the Capitalist Party. So elections are contested over personality and small, divisive but ultimately insignificant differences in social policy.

      Here in Vietnam it's much the same. In every election people get to choose between at least two, often four, candidates from the Communist Party. Who have roughly as much diversity of views between them as our "two parties" do in America.

    15. Re: Divide and conquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bit of a Pavlovian slip there comrade. You should have written:

      In Russia, we get to vote for one faction of the Capitalist Party, or the other faction of the Capitalist Party.

    16. Re: Divide and conquer by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Naw broham. I'm an American, and I live in Vietnam.

      How's the air pollution in Beijing today?

  40. Trollhive is awake by Arzaboa · · Score: 0

    Looking through these comments, I think every single Russian misinformation point has now been posted by some AC.

    --
    "No Branch" - Poppi, Trolls

    1. Re:Trollhive is awake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think a single post here was posted by a russian troll/bot etc you are delusional. Or very very stupid. Or a lying evil person. Those are the three options.

    2. Re:Trollhive is awake by psergiu · · Score: 1

      Or a lying evil person.

      Hmm...
      That doesn't sounds very good in english.
      Maybe you wanted to actually say: lzhivyy, zloy chelovek :-)

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    3. Re:Trollhive is awake by superwiz · · Score: 1

      "zloy" is more angry than evil. "Pagubniy" is probably the closest to how evil is used in English.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re: Trollhive is awake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the state of US education, specially amongst Trump supporters, and the high recruitment standards for Russian trolls, a lot of the latter have better English and of course very few of the dumb Trumpies post on Slashdot, "Ah tried to use them computers but first it wouldn't let me unless ah typed in ma name, then it said X weren't a proper name. Dam gubmint's not gonna git me that way."

    5. Re:Trollhive is awake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally post as AC (a few times/week) when the debate is political because I'm pro-Trump in a number of things and don't fancy getting doxed because my information is identifiable.

    6. Re:Trollhive is awake by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you think a single post here was posted by a russian troll/bot etc you are delusional. Or very very stupid. Or a lying evil person. Those are the three options.

      If you think russian trolls/bots are above posting on Slashdot, you are probably all of those things. Forum posts are very inexpensive, especially if being made by a bot. How many HTTP requests does it take to equal one porn download? They might as well be free.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Trollhive is awake by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      I generally post as AC (a few times/week) when the debate is political because I'm pro-Trump in a number of things and don't fancy getting doxed because my information is identifiable.

      It's impossible to be pro-Trump without supporting corruption, racism, theft and fraud. Literally everything he's done has been evil, up to and including declaring the heroin epidemic a public health emergency instead of a national emergency as a means of misdirection. You're not worried about being doxed, you're just worried that people will know you're a shitlord and stop taking anything else you say seriously because they know you're a sociopath at best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Trollhive is awake by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      I clearly said Russian troll talking point. It appears you are saying /. posters are spewing the propaganda. Hmm... It appears you are thinking now, just slightly. Good Morning America!

      --
      "No Branch" - Poppi, Trolls

    9. Re:Trollhive is awake by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to be pro-Trump without supporting corruption, racism, theft and fraud.

      That sounds like something a Russian troll would say, trying to sow divisiveness.

    10. Re:Trollhive is awake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This exactly how it works. Putin wants us to fight with one another over anything. That is why there are trolls everywhere pushing people's buttons.

      The point of the Russian ads wasn't to convince someone to vote for or against Trump/Hillary, it was to confuse the issues. It was to divide us. If the US is weakened then Putin has more chance to sell his oil and his KGB philosophy.

  41. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you don't think fake news changed the outcome of the election, it's because you're inside the bubble. So the proof is irrelevant, I couldn't convince you the sky is blue if Fox and Friends told you it wasn't.

  42. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    You post those links trying to mock the right wing sites that posted it

    "Trying"? I beg your pardon.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  43. Super saiyans? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    What an incredible moron you are. You post those links trying to mock the right wing sites that posted it, but THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO SAID IT! It's Michael Moore and your team of Social Justice Ninjas who think the best way to combat speech they don't like is to burn down your local college. Your own deranged brethren are the joke!

    Still, super saiyins are pretty tough. If they have even *one* of those it could wreck the entire planet.

    It's worth getting worried about.

  44. Re: Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Reverend+Green · · Score: 0

    Will be share his cell in the Gulag with Beijing Hillary?

  45. Re: Article misses so much information, on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying not to feed the trolls but... If we didn't have the electoral college and the vote was pure popular the turnout would have been completely different. Not guessing who would have won but a whole bunch more it other people would have voted.

  46. Just fyi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 50k is just a drop in the bucket compared to the total the Russian government spent. No campaign spent billions on Facebook alone. Believe it or not but people are suckers for propaganda and ads were just a small part of the overall campaign.

    It's time Americans put politics aside and wake up to what really is going on. Look at who we really got representing us on the works stage. The greatness of America is dying and we are helping it. Unfortunately people won't get it until we end up in the White nationalist civil war paid for my Russia.

    Fools.

    1. Re: Just fyi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no "white nationalists". Fool.

    2. Re: Just fyi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely they're not all Russian trolls?

  47. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Personally I think it's a-okay that B. Clinton got lots of blowjobs in the White House. Go him!

    The reason I don't like Bill Clinton is that he did his very best to dismantle what little industry remained in America, and mostly succeeded at that despicable endeavor.

  48. Re: Article misses so much information, on purpose by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    My neighbor's dead dog voted for Gary Johnson. Just sayin'...

  49. Re: Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing you're going to defend are the privileges of property and wealth. You are an active enemy of all working people and you know it. That's why you so eagerly push divisive identify politics and imaginary narratives of foreign interference.

  50. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by ScentCone · · Score: 0

    Did the fake news make YOU change your vote? Are you really that weak-willed? That's pretty awful. In the future, please don't vote. You're not up to it.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  51. Boris & Natasha strike! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That dastardly Boris and Natasha!

    They made those Hillary and DNC staffers send all those DKIM-verified unforgeable e-mails! The only explanation: Russia used mind control to make them write the e-mails, then made sure they got to Wikileaks complete with DKIM verification.

    What will we discover next? Putin is an inter-dimensional Lizard Lord and has come to steal our fidget spinners to power his planetary reactors?

  52. Hey deplorables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You people who voted for Trump are still completely deplorable with such simple minds that you let the Russians fool you into voting for Trump and not me.

    I'm doing all this now so you understand just how completely hated you are by me and my fellow Democrats. I never wanted your vote anyway you awful people, who let your retardedly small brains get swayed by the Russians - when it was damn clear that it was my turn be president after Obama. Because it was damn time that a vagina finally make it to the White House after a black.

    Every single one of you people are misogynistic racist white men who contribute to the rape culture that plagues this great nation of ours. Not to mention that just because your white patriarchy ass manages to breath you're also completely responsible for the wage pay gap.

    Go eff yourselves, I never wanted your vote anyway. Hillary Rodham Clinton."

    1. Re: Hey deplorables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Hillary actually said, rather than the version from the Kremlin translation service.

      "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

      She said the other half of Trump's supporters "feel that the government has let them down" and are "desperate for change."

      "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well," she said.

  53. What skeletons does Slashdot have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point Slashdot stopped being true to tech and went all-out SJW trying to push globalism and human extinction. Was it when the site first got sold? When did it happen? Because this is ridiculous.

    1. Re:What skeletons does Slashdot have? by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      [...] push globalism and human extinction.

      Wot?

      I've seen lots of exaggeration on /., I've seen hysterical exaggeration, I've seen must-be-a-drool-proof-keyboard exaggeration, but now slashdot pushes human extinction?

      I, err, ..... I give up.

    2. Re: What skeletons does Slashdot have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It pushes globalist narratives, which result in genocide. They're like the publishers who printed and distributed Nazi propaganda posters.

    3. Re:What skeletons does Slashdot have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the king of conspiracy theories so I'm not surprised to see it here. Didn't you know that the global elite are trying to create the New World Order and part of that plan is to depopulate the world using tools such as HAARP, chemtrails and globalisation. You should try it - it makes understanding the world easier (not because its true, but because its uncomplicated, unlike the real world).

  54. What Makes the American Public... by buravirgil · · Score: 2

    An interesting movie to have seen is Generation P(2011) because to what degree the average (young) Russian can be familiar with US culture far outpaces any reciprocity. Not because of any superiority, but because western advances in terms of technology and modernity have had a primacy since WWII. Someone had to come first. Which produces ironies, such as Dan Ackroyd's (Zalinsky) line from Tommy Boy(1995): What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public. Such precedence is realized and actualized by markets and most often expressed in terms of consumer goods. But their design and production will not forever remain America's providence, nor should they, and this is understandably frightening to many and exploited by some for many reasons.

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
  55. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure why this is funny. Antifa themselves has called for this "uprising" and have been announcing it, while their members hand out ice picks and talk about how many guns they have while getting prepared for it. They might fall flat on their face but even in failing they can cause untold damage to cities as the police have been ordered to stand down when things get hairy, and when someone from antifa smacks a guy in the head with a bike lock 4chan has to identify the guy for the police to get him caught.

  56. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe you've never heard how effective propaganda can be.

    Here is a hint. If it didn't work, no one would waste their time doing it...

  57. what? by superwiz · · Score: 1

    They didn't get the memo did they? Russians weren't hacking the election anymore. It's only election hacking if they supported Republicans. All the money Russians spent on the Democrats clearly shows that they were not hacking the election.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  58. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by superwiz · · Score: 0

    The real question is how many unique views were served for each ad and how many ads there were total. 126 million people seeing one silly racist political meme one random afternoon is nothing to panic about, and certainly they'll try to spin this revelation as nothing more than that. But 126 million people being immersed daily into an advertising environment that's completely saturated with unregulated foreign propaganda, rubber-stamped with approval by an ostensibly loyal, United States citizen-owned publicly traded corporation... now that my friends, that right there is how you sew destruction throughout the minds of an entire population. That is how you fundamentally pervert the perception of reality of an entire social class. That is how you sever friendships and turn families against each other. That is how you topple a government. That is how you start a civil war. That is something worth panicking about.

    Paid for by the Podesta Group and the DNC.

    There... fixed it for you.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  59. Re: Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't mention Hillary earlier.

    Congressman Al Green
    @RepAlGreen

    Manafort and Gates have been indicted. Papadopoulos plead guilty. THIS is how you drain the swamp! #IndictmentDay #ImpeachTrump

  60. Re:Pay me money forever! by superwiz · · Score: 0

    Hey, it beats saying "nope, I got nothing; couldn't find the collusion; moving on now."

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  61. and it only took by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about 107,000* nutjobs to take the bait and believe the bullshit to get where we are today.

    (the combined margin in PA/MI/WI)

  62. Re: The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumpâ(TM)s digital director, Brad Parscale, told CBS:

    "Twitter is how [Trump] talked to the people, Facebook was going to be how he won," Parscale said.

    Facebook provided Trump 2016 with employees who embedded in the campaign's digital office and helped educate staffers on how to use Facebook ads, he said. Because he "wanted people who supported Donald Trump", Parscale said, the Facebook employees were questioned on their political views.

  63. Re: What about other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because the Europeans did it openly and legally. They didn't use secret funds and astroturfers like Reverend Green and scentcone to influence the US electorate. Now do you understand?

  64. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you be so intentionally dishonest with the information that you used to teach?

    Why spend so much time sewing hatred and chaos and disinformation when you had a career doing the opposite?

    Why reverse your life's work?

    I'm not going to argue individual points. Many do and you act so terribly cruel towards people you know are right. Does it give you an emotional thrill to be a childish troll in such a way that a decent percentage of the population will stick up for you out of pure bias?

    Just, well it would be good of you to think about what you are doing to others. Doubly so if you are judging what others are doing to you and each other.

  65. Re:The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans have spent much more than that over the last decade to push lies about her.

  66. Re: The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it proves the stupidity of the American voter. Anyone who bases their vote on a Facebook ad has no business being in a voting booth.

  67. With all the other lies, what does it matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the other lies, corruption, political swaying, and what not that Americans are subjected to, what damage could a few adverts that essentialy take an opposing view possibly do?

    You make it sound like irreversible damage has been done to the pure and innocent American minds, and that Americans are never supposed to hear alternative views, only those propagated by their own government.

    If anything, this circus makes the U.S. government look bad, because it again says that Americans are supposed to listen and do what we say, and nothing else.

  68. Set Up the Camps! by Shogun37 · · Score: 2

    Oh Nos! All those Special Snowflakes who can't make their own decisions saw Bad Things! We must Reeducate them! Get the accounts list from Faceplant and start up the trucks! Seriously? If you're the kind of person who votes based on political ads, would you please STOP VOTING!? Democracy needs a well educated, involved voter base to work. It's a given that neither side WANTS a well-educated voter base, but surely adults (that want to) can find out things for themselves? Even biased news, once the amount and direction of the lean can be determined, can be informative. But, hey...obviously cat videos and get rich quick schemes have a higher priority over figuring out who to vote for. Scotty, beam me up. There's no intelligent life here.

    1. Re:Set Up the Camps! by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Oh Nos! All those Special Snowflakes who can't make their own decisions saw Bad Things!

      Just to be clear, the special snowflakes we've discussed so far have all been Trump supporters; they were showing ultra-liberal ads to conservatives in an attempt to galvanize them to vote against their own best interests.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Set Up the Camps! by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

      "Own best interest" means "voting for some one who called me a deplorable human, and sold missle technology to China." Right....Keep thinking that, Champ. And no, my opinion doesn't change. And thanks for proving my point!

    3. Re:Set Up the Camps! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      voting for some one who called me a deplorable human

      Well, she was half right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Set Up the Camps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Posting AC to preserve moderation).

      I wasn't registered for the next week's election until last week. It's rare that I'm ever an unregistered voter - usually after moving to another state and it was actually quite refreshing not to be bombarded by ads in my physical mail.

      I do look at ads like that, but with a very critical eye. Who paid for them? Are their claims true? I spend time and effort researching them.

      Also, registration was incredibly simple here - so simple that it seems easily open to fraud. You only need a few pieces of information. Last 4 of SSN was one. Birthdate was another. IIRC a driver's license number would suffice instead of the last 4 of SSN.

      And that was done online.

      Deregistering someone is just as simple too. I got my ballot on Saturday. I don't know if they verified all that information. They could have. It's not like they don't know who I am and where I live.

  69. Who looks at ads any longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anybody actually look at an Ad on facebook, or any other site, and actually put thought into it to believe anything the Ad even says? Granted there are people who fall for the tax scheme or the Windows PC virus phone calls, but c'mon.....

  70. Re:NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are representative of the average democratic voter, then you probably shouldn't anticipate too many future "victories".

  71. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by ilguido · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't think fake news changed the outcome of the election, it's because you're inside the bubble.

    The outcome of the election was the result of two opposing forces: the repulsion for Trump that made a lot of people vote Hillary, even if they didn't like her, and the repulsion for Hillary that made a lot of people not vote her, even if they do not like Trump. Eventually the second force prevailed, and that was thanks to all the media that endorsed Hillary: the media fanfare made alot of people think that Hillary's victory was obvious and so they voted libertarian or something else and that was fatal in swing states.

  72. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody changed their mind on who to vote for based on a facebook ad. If you think someone did, prove it.

    Wtf?

    First of all, who said the point of the ads is to get people to change their mind? This is what the Trump team itself was doing with ads/targeting before the elections:

    Trump’s campaign has devised another strategy, which, not surprisingly, is negative. Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump’s invocation at the debate of Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.

    All you need to dö is get enough people in the key demographic of your opponent to stay home in key areas.

    Second of all: many people don't recognize sponsored content/ads in social media, or elsewhere. You'll see a news article or a blog post that has above it something like '[Your friend name here] also liked [our site]' and that's in fact a paid ad targeted to you because someone you know has liked the page and they've targeted their promotion that way, but really people generally don't think of these as ads but just another part of their newsfeed which actually makes them more effective.

    Third of all: ads (both direct and sponsored content) do affect people's decisions. That's why they exist and why companies are pouring money into them but you obviously will have a hard time finding anyone who says they bought any opinion/product/service because it was advertised to them, partly because people don't often recognize the impact ads have on them. Chances are high advertising has affected your behavior during your lifetime without you being directly aware of it. You see ads and at some later point when you're making the decision of what to buy, the ads play into your preconceptions and decision making process at a subconscious level. Hardly no-one is at the store like 'I'm going to buy this product because I saw that ad last week" but there is still is an increase in sales following a successful marketing campaign.

    So no, if you poll people and ask them 'did you see any paid for articles in your news feed about either candidate and if so did they effect your decision on whether to vote or not and for which candidate?' you're likely going to get a 'no' on all 3 of those from most people but that doesn't mean there was no effect, it just means most people can't recognize well placed ads as ads anymore and that like always, people think they're immune to the psychological effects of ads/sponsored content when they provably are not.

    Human beings on average are much more easy to influence than we tend to admit, and the marketing industry has been honing their skills for way over half a century at this point becoming more and more successful at it.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  73. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US may have won the battle (1991); but it's not going to win the war (2016 election). This is great; seeing capitalism turned against a far right nation. I thought the US supported free trade? What, little old Russia cant BUY ads? Aww.

  74. Re:Smart russi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The electoral college was won by only 80 thousand votes, so yes a few ads could have tipped the scales. I can't understand why republicans of all people aren't more concerned by the manipulation of the electorate from what was our enemy at one time,

  75. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    Why spend so much time sewing hatred and chaos and disinformation when you had a career doing the opposite?

    Sewing? Are you a Russian troll, just a total idiot no one should ever listen to on any subject, or both?

    Just, well it would be good of you to think about what you are doing to others. Doubly so if you are judging what others are doing to you and each other.

    Just tell yourself "it's only a paycheck, tovarisch"

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  76. Re: NOTHING BURGER by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The reason I don't like Bill Clinton is that he did his very best to dismantle what little industry remained in America, and mostly succeeded at that despicable endeavor.

    Don't forget his role in media consolidation. Faux news and the so-called "Fake News" alike derive their power from being able to own every media outlet they can get the grubby hands of dead presidents upon.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  77. Re:Reminder by avandesande · · Score: 1

    She announced her candidacy sitting on a couch, on TV. If that isn't hubris I don't know what is....

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  78. Libtard conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You MUST believe and accept that there was no Russian meddling. JFK and 9/11 were big time conspiracies though. :confused:

    1. Re: Libtard conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell 'em, Boris!

  79. Re: Article misses so much information, on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have realized by now AmiMojo that on here, on this subject, there's a 90% chance you're arguing with a Putinbot.

  80. Re:The $50k spend on Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A decent candidate with a coherent message would have wiped the floor with Trump.

    Trump's coherent message seemed to be "F. U. Elites", and that was what resonated with people...

  81. Re: OH NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't need Russia to tell me that liberals were smug, condescending assholes. You all did that for free.

  82. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Prove that it had zero influence on anyone. You can't, any more than I can prove that a specific ad influenced a specific person.

    But it wasn't just ads of course. There was an army of fake accounts amplifying those messages and shitposting from 8 AM to 6 PM Moscow time every weekday.

    Frankly the claim that it all had zero influence lacks any credibility. I don't think any reasonable person would contest that propaganda and fake news has zero influence on anyone.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  83. Re: Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny because people like you take it seriously (or pretend to) and feel compelled to post replies complete with links which you laughably think support what might laughably be called your case. That's why it's funny.

    Remember remember the 4th of November,
    Fake patriots, Putin and bots,
    Trump's lack of reason's
    No excuse why his treasons
    Should ever be forgot!

  84. Re:The $50k spend on Facebook... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Would someone who inherited a billion-dollar fortune count as one of the elites?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  85. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Sewing?

    It's fairly telling that you can look at a post that so accurately and straightforwardly nails Ratzo as the spiteful, bitter little man he's become in direct contrast to the flowery story in his profile, and the only real response you can manage is to point out a single spelling gaffe.

  86. Uhhh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who looks at the ads on Facebook?

  87. Universal Code of Conduct UN agreement? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, it would be a good idea to develop an Universal Code of Conduct? Similar to Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Otherwise the attempts to destabilize each other would only keep intensifying.

  88. only 126 million ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mebby 126-million citizens have vomited over nibber-itch Maxine Waters .... which proves not all Bantu azzwholes and Pelosi pubes stay in the privy.

    1. Re: only 126 million ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you've mixed up your dictionaries there Ivan or it's too much vodka at lunchtime.

  89. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC Lead the Fake News. Mostly MSNBC but the others are just as guilty.

    Then you have the rabid folks at The View and Late Night talk hosts the really juice the fake news up.

    But who is really to blame for all the shite those outlest spew. If you spend 5 seconds, you realize those outlets are all Democrat party aligned. Everyone of them. Thus, the Democrats are responsible for this mess.

    Democrats are the current enemy of the USA. End of story.

  90. Re:OH NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trotsky progressives are tainted, yes indeed ... tainted by their snowflake buttboiz and vote-herded Bantuz. You are the stain ... Trump's the bleach. We'll wash you into the gutter.

  91. Re:Reminder by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

    Given how her primary counterpart announced their candidacy, I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here.

  92. How many saw Harvey Weinstein paid for posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really makes you wonder if all the foreign meddling in american elections is real or not.

    You know? DO you think it IS REAL is a problem"

  93. What North Korea is doing to TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Korea has its own opinions about what PR to give about Trump - from leaflets found appearing in central Seoul.
    (so that's propaganda to South Korean citizens in the current pseudo-war situation, not propaganda that North Koreans might see)

    Warning : it's incredibly graphical!!
    https://www.rt.com/news/408163-north-korea-leaflets-seoul-trump/

  94. Eh .. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitlery had 10X the campaign finaincial power of the Trump campaign. She was an overconfident, half-assed loser. THE END
    RUSSIANS NOT NEEDED. HITLERY SUFFICED.

  95. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason I don't like Bill Clinton is that he did his very best to dismantle what little industry remained in America, and mostly succeeded at that despicable endeavor.

    Which "industry" are you referring to? I couldn't find one that was "dismantled" under Clinton. In fact most, if not all "industries" did very well as a whole.

    This is not to say that there weren't winners and losers, but saying there was no industry left in America is ridiculous. If what you're really getting at was employment and wages then you have much bigger targets than Clinton.

  96. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The joke is that the shoe is on the other foot, you're just busy lying to distract from that.

    The ex-campaign manager was arrested for questionable money exchanges to organizations trying to get Ukraine into the EU and/or NATO.
    The ex-advisor was caught for trying to answer questions. If he took Hillary's "I know nothing, NOTHING!" testimony habit, he'd be free as well. But when someone tries to cooperate and no real crime is committed, that person will eventually be arrested for contradiction sometime in the hundreds of hours of recorded testimony.

    The politicians who really did collude with Russia have claimed ignorance of the money trail in that exchange, which either means they were lied to by their subordinates or they were lying under oath. It will probably be the subordinates who face jail time, regardless of the truth.

  97. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a cynics view; people are so out-of-touch they thought Hillary was a shoe-in and squandered their vote. Not that I'm opposed to being cynical when its appropriate.

  98. Sure glad I wasn't one of them! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    See? Facebook is bad for you. Delete your account and never go back there.

  99. Correct The Record sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, they dumped millions on ads on Facebook and Twitter for Hillary and didn't get even close to the supposed depth that the Russians achieved for a tiny fraction of the cost. If I ever run for president I want to hire these guys for sure.

  100. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by houghi · · Score: 2

    Are you saying ads don't work? You could earn billions by selling your idea to companies on how to cut their advertising budget.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  101. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by houghi · · Score: 1

    This: Many people got convinced not to vote for Hilary for whatever reason and she lost.
    The media fanfare is fueled by what people are interested in and if that is her emails, that is what they will write about.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  102. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere along the line Repugs forgot what the term "Fake News" meant. It certainly doesn't mean what it used to mean.

    Weren't they the ones trying to make the same claim about the BLM Salute that everyone does during the national anthem?

  103. Re:Reminder by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Sanders announced at a press conference where he answered questions and Trump announced at a rally.... Hillary's dislike for the unwashed masses is palatable.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  104. Re:Trump is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you even bothered to look at the charges filed?

  105. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    A typical email marketing campaign might have an open rate of 5% and a closure rate of 10% (of those 5% who opened the email). So in all, half a person bought your product out of every 100 people you marketed to. I'd expect rates are similar or worse in facebook ads. Honestly, only targeted ads get better open and conversion rates. So did it affect the election? Yes. Did it determine the outcome of the election? I doubt it. Pretty much all the flyover states voted from Trump overwhelmingly and pretty much all the metro pockets voted for Clinton. The real story of the election is that the only reason Clinton had a chance at all is because California is a winner take all state.

  106. Re: Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then please state your links which you think make your counter case =).

  107. Re:OH NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found the racist asshole.

  108. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I posted that near four in the morning, so not surprising that there was a mistake.

    Did not even know there were profiles for people and have been posting here since six-digit UIDs were being handed out (if only I knew that, 17 years later people would listen to you based on a number instead of content). Never seen any information there in the rare cases of checking someone's account, so thanks for that.

    The post is an appeal to PopeRatzo's humanity and what he has written about himself over the years as being a liberal arts professor with a desire to teach facts rather than rhetoric, thus the critical theory comment in his profile I suppose. But for the last year or so he has been doing the opposite and being petulant while doing so.

    Don't worry so much about drinkypoo. He often replies with that childish negativity on my posts. Never a meaningful retort or discussion. Several others do the same. I'm sure you can guess who they are.

  109. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    Except no, that comment was utter horse shit. The idea that Mueller hasn't found anything is unsubstantiated, there's no evidence pointing to Hillary or Obama but there's shit-tons of evidence linking Trump, his family, and his various associates to Russia (the ones who haven't been fired or determined to be unqualified to be hired have been quitting in droves) and mocking the batshit right-wingnut media isn't deflecting anything. But there was really no point in pointing all of that out, so instead I point out the kind of spelling error which might readily crop up when someone's first language wasn't English... and in this case, was probably Russian.

    Remember, standing up for ACs in a discussion on Russian media influence makes you a useful idiot at best.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  110. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    Honestly, who cares? Why not let the market of ideas sort itself out? After all, its the merit of the policy positions that matter, not just the logistics of who is going to implement them.

  111. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    If you think someone did, prove it.

    Proof: the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on advertising each year. Folks don't spend that without proof it sells the product.

    And if you think reading a fake article about how candidate ____________ made some illegal _________ when they were ___________ can't affect someone's vote, you're mentally handicapped.

  112. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Did it determine the outcome of the election? I doubt it.

    The issue is that a foreign power even attempted to influence a US election. You're being fed information telling you this is a witch hunt to reverse the election result or impeach Trump. It's not. That's not going to happen any sane person knows that.

  113. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Mueller... Hillary... Obama... Russia...

    Wow, I don't see how you could possibly be talking about the same comment you originally replied to. Oh, wait, you're not -- you're jumping to a completely different one. Apparently the spelling gaffe was the only thing you could find wrong in the original comment.

    Remember, standing up for ACs in a discussion on Russian media influence makes you a useful idiot at best.

    Ok, Senator McCarthy -- got it. (Do you ever take a step back and listen to yourself when you say stuff like this?)

    But while we're on the subject, what does it make you if you believe that all ACs in a thread are the same poster (dude, really?)

  114. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Wow, I don't see how you could possibly be talking about the same comment you originally replied to.

    Wow, I'm talking about the comment that PopeRatzo replied to, you stellar dumbfuck. You can't even follow the thread of the conversation?

    But while we're on the subject, what does it make you if you believe that all ACs in a thread are the same poster (dude, really?)

    I don't. I think they're different Russian trolls.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  115. Beyond fantastic for Facebook by HermMunster · · Score: 2

    Also extremely biased.

    So 100,000 dollars nets you 120 million influnces. Facebook is going to sell a lot more ads in the near future. I didn't see the ads as I dumped Facebook during the primaries due to what I perceived as inherent bias on the part of Facebook itself.

    I had no likes, entered no work or education history, rarely followed anyone but tech pages, and I was being inundated with pro Hillary and anti-Trump rhetoric.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  116. Re:Remember, Remember the 4th of November by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    The thread of the conversation is crystal clear and here for all to read, and all the invective and table pounding you care to dish out can't change the fact that you silently shifted to attacking a completely different post after I called out your cheap shot at the first one. If you honestly think you were discussing the same post throughout, perhaps a med rebalance is in order.

  117. Alert! by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Foreigners are trying to brainwash the American people - that's OUR privilege alone!

  118. Hey Vladimir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really caring how "sick and tired" you are of the Russian story.

    It happened. There is loads of evidence of it. Supporters of the Big Giant Orange Head claimed there was no evidence. Now there is evidence.

    The evidence of your two-faced point of view on this is contained in your post. At one and the same time, you state "It's fake. It never happened." Then you do on to admit "...they bought ads on Facebook". So which is it Vladimir?

    And yes, I seriously think you voted for Trump because you saw ads from Russians on Facebook. Also, you read leaked e-mails which came from Russians. Also, you read with and agreed with Russian trolls who posted opinions on social media which you agreed with. They fed you a story you really, really wanted to believe was true. It's called confirmation bias and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    When Trump was caught "grabbing pussy", you dismissed it. When Trump spread his birther lies you gleefully agreed with him. When Trump told you he would get you healthcare "much cheaper and much better", you decided that was possible even though logic says otherwise. When Trump told you he would build a wall and the Mexicans would pay for it, you decided that was great and not at all unlikely.

    Can't fix stupid. You fell for a Confidence Man's patter and cannot accept that. Trump is incompetent and won't deliver for you, no matter how much you want him to. And you'll try to blame others for his failures and yours.

    1. Re: Hey Vladimir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those leaked emails exposed a plot by the Clinton campaign to rig an election. Should we ignore those facts and let a cheater win?

      Russia bought ads. Big deal. Are they any more influential than any other outrage ad on the same topic? How many groups on Facebook were created by Russians to encourage violence by ;
      Black Lives Matter types against police or by anti illegal immigrant groups? How many were created by foreign actors vs domestic ones? Do you even know? Can you even know?

      All this has done is create a biatch fest that can never be resolved, and yet continues to pit us against eachother.

      And for Russia that's the entire point

  119. There's an easy fix here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Delete your Facebook account, if you don't want to be manipulated. Facebook tracks your habits, likes, etc. They build profiles about you that allow marketers to target you based on your biases, and that makes you prone to manipulation.

    I've been off Facebook LinkedIn etc for several years and don't miss it one bit.

  120. Re: Remember, Remember the 4th of November by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing to counter because it's all a big, what is it you Russians say? ah yes "nothingburger".

  121. Re:Reminder by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

    Look, I'll defend a lot of what Sanders did and that's great, as well as that Hillary is, for the most part, incapable of being genuine with people on a campaign. However, don't go arguing Trump wasn't showing off his ego with that announcement. He was even trying to conduct the music for god's sake. It was a show for him, and him alone.

    Also, the need to go overboard attacking people you don't like isn't helping general discourse. Not knowing how to talk to the 'unwashed masses', as you state, is not even close to disliking them. I'll never defend Trump, but I'm never going to say more than he doesn't care about them. Hillary, if you ask me, is trying to help them the same way she wants to try to help others - but because she's a politician I don't think she knows how help outside of traditional political thinking. I don't know how much she actually cares, but at least I get a sense she's trying to do something to help them (flawed as the thinking is).

  122. fake news being seen by fake accounts by mezcalhead · · Score: 1

    Facebook is probably 1/3 fake accounts so I wonder how they came up with this "126 million Americans" figure? I'd put the number closer to 85 million, which is still substantial, but fb has a fake account problem.

  123. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to know the substance of the ads. no one seems to be talking about what the actual ads were, just automagically assuming the ads were in trump's favor. wouldn't it be ironic if they were pro clinton ads ?

  124. Re:They say how many people but not how many uniqu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  125. "The Russians are Coming, the Russians are coming" by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Yawn.

    I've not been following this too closely. Apparently the problem is that voters are sheep that can reliably be lead by advertising to vote for whoever advertises at them the hardest, most often, most effectively, or most recently. Or something like that.

    And instead of domestic scoundrels doing it, it was the Roooskies!

    As long as they're using their fiendish mind control to support a candidate of one of the statutory duopoly party candidates, what's the problem? What makes them worse than the Democrats and the Republicans who were attempting the exact same thing?

    Did I miss something?

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  126. Choice no Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voters had to choose between terminal cancer or Zika virus. So they went with microcephaly . Russia is being vilified for coming to the aid of the Syrian people and that is all. Faceboot says what they are told to say, otherwise they just sell info about you. Hillary needs to blame someone because

  127. Re: NOTHING BURGER by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Where I grew up, the factories were dismantled under B. Clinton. They literally disassembled the production machinery, packed it in boxes, and literally shipped it to China. Then tore down the factory buildings. Clinton was a great enemy of the industrial working class in America.