Slashdot Mirror


Russia-Linked Accounts Were Active on Facebook Ahead of Brexit (ft.com)

The Russia-linked troll farm that used Facebook to target Americans during last year's election was also active in the UK ahead of the Brexit vote (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source), the social media company has admitted. From a report: In a letter to the Electoral Commission, Facebook said accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency spent $0.97 for three ads in the days before the EU referendum. These ads appeared on approximately 200 news feeds in the UK before the country voted to leave the EU last year. For months the social media company has sidestepped questions from MPs and journalists about Russian interference through its platform in the UK. The concerns were fuelled by revelations this summer that Facebook had been weaponised by Russian entities before the election of US President Donald Trump. France and Germany have said their elections were also targeted. "We strongly support the Commission's efforts to regulate and enforce political campaign finance rules in the United Kingdom, and we take the Commission's request very seriously," Facebook said in the letter.

27 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. 75p's worth by rapiddescent · · Score: 2

    That's about the same value as a can of coke has been spent on pre-brexit facebook ads. Either, the spend was much better hidden (see how the vote leave campaign channelled GBP625,000 through a 23yr old student) or brexit was not endorsed or funded by the Russians and simply fuelled by the stupid.

    1. Re:75p's worth by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      simply fuelled by the stupid.

      We certainly have enough of those in the UK.

  2. "200 news feeds"! by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only 200 news feeds, that's less then the average shot of a kitten falling off a sofa or a half-decent restaurant meal. Really if that's all they managed they aren't very good hackers, the effect would have been almost non-existent.

    1. Re:"200 news feeds"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that the article (or maybe the source, Facebook) refuses to mention anything about the content of the ads. This is very similar to the "Russia-linked Facebook ads influencing the 2016 election" whose details were hidden for as long as the media could manage.
      Eventually, it came out that those ads were supporting Black Lives Matter and Hillary.
      The silence from the BBC and Facebook is a pretty strong indicator that the paltry advertising attempt was in support of the remain vote.

    2. Re:"200 news feeds"! by maybe111 · · Score: 2

      because they want to back off of brexit, they need to find as many reasons as possible

  3. Re: You guys are all nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    so like slashdot

    Slashdot changed my opinion that Linux users were all a nice set of logically-thinking geeks.

  4. Re: Moscow Donald is going to prison for TREASON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The new norm: When the election result doesn't suit the powers that be, blame the Russians.

    What, the US and UK didnt think the same political manipulation that they use to keep poor countries poor would ever hey used on them?

    Fuck em both.

  5. Up next on slashdot by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    Russia-linked accounts were active on facebook before global warming.

  6. 97 cents worth of ads??? by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful

    97 cents??? You're doing an entire Slashdot post about 97 cents worth of ads????

    More than $140 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One board members and associates, but no, let's focus on 97 cents worth of ads.

    The left's newfound Russia Derangement Syndrome is beyond parody.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:97 cents worth of ads??? by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      The Uranium One conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked by now, but the Russian interference is ongoing and still relevant. Clinton isn't even a public figure these days, but Trump is president (in part due to Russian interference).

      The right's newfound Russia Defending Syndrome is beyond parody.

  7. Who stands to win? by h8sg8s · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who stands to win by the Balkanization of the World's most stable organizations? When the EU, NATO, the USA and other large/multi-national organizations fall, Russia, still smarting from the fall of the USSR, can rise in prominence. Putin already tried putting Humpty back together, tearing down everyone else is a parallel strategy.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
    1. Re:Who stands to win? by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Russia today has an economy the size of Australia...bunch of geldings reminiscing about their balls. The biggest threat they present is their technicians or engineers getting jobs in nations that are actual threats.

      A less American centric NATO isn't a benefit to Russia. Rather the opposite. Russia's direct neighbors are LESS likely to tolerate their bullshit than America is.

      And here I was thinking that he biggest threat Russia poses consists of ~7000 nuclear warheads.

  8. The case for BREXIT by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I voted for BREXIT. Here's why

    Outside the EU with a Canada type deal the UK would have control over

    1) Immigration. Inside the EU we have to accept free movement of EU citizens. Not just to come to work, which I have no problem with, but also to claim benefits which I have a large problem with. And, more subtly, being inside the EU means we have to sign up to the ECHR. Article 8 of that makes it almost impossible to deport criminal, non EU aliens. Also if the UK is in the EU, it cannot refuse EU migrants and immigration is unpopular it instead clamps down on non EU ones. I've got a lot of friends in non EU countries who have tried and failed to get UK work permits because of this, despite the fact that they'd get a job and pay taxes if they moved to the UK. Many EU migrants end up in low pay jobs and are not net taxpayers because they depend on Working Families Tax Credit, Housing Benefit and so on. I.e. the EU is a source of cheap labour but that labour is subsidised by the taxpayer.

    2) Trade. Inside the EU we need to have tariffs on non EU imports. Outside the EU we don't - we could sign free trade agreements with the US for example, which is our largest export customer. There's the Commonwealth, Asia and so on. Trade with the EU is important, but it is declining in importance. Also even without a Canada type deal we have a trade deficit with the EU. I.e. we buy more than we sell. So if tariffs are imposed on trade both ways we can use the tariffs we collect to pay our exporters tariffs.

    3) Internal regulations. If you trade with another country, your exporters need to comply with their regulations on goods they export. Unfortunately the EU goes much farther than that - the EU wants to be a state and to regulate even intra country trade. Outside the EU that wouldn't happen.

    4) Democracy. Democracy works if you vote for a government, that government makes policy and then you vote again. In the EU that process is broken because there are things you can vote for - controls on immigration for example - which the EU will block. In the run up to BREXIT Cameron asked for a delay between new immigrants arriving from the EU and being able to claim benefits but was slapped down. Meanwhile Merkel unilaterally admitted 'Syrian refugees' who turned out to be mostly not Syrian and not refugees. Since Germany controls the EU, the EU didn't bat an eyelid. In fact the EU is still trying to impose a quota system on EU countries to accept their 'fair share' of the migrants Merkel invited into Germany.

    5) Defence. The EU wants an army and to be a state. The UK has traditionally seen NATO as being the security organisation, and the EEC and then EU as being about trade. Leaving the EU with a Canada type agreement keeps tariffs off trade but removes us from getting sucked into the EU's aspirations at statehood. Even a WTO deal isn't too bad for the reasons mentioned in 2)

    6) Money. The UK makes a net contribution of £10billion per year. Outside the EU we'll probably have to pay a divorce fee of around £40billion or so. However after that we'll only contribute to programs which are in the national interest. Norway is not an EU member but is a single market member and makes per capita contributions of around 1/7 what the UK does.

    Of course the Remoaners want you to think it's all a Russian plot. Nope. There was a referendum and you guys lost.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:The case for BREXIT by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Why can immigrants even claim benefits?
      Can't you tie that to being a UK national?

      Not inside the EU.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      In February the Commission started a furious row with Westminster after claiming that Cameron's plan to ban foreign migrants from receiving benefits unless they earn a minimum of £149 a week are illegal.
      The Commission threatened to take the British Government to court after claiming it was illegal to define a "worker" according to the amount he or she earns is not compatible with EU law.
      A source close to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary hit back: "We're absolutely confident the changes are legal as well as right."

      Inside the EU it's illegal to treat the citizens of other EU countries differently than you treat your own citizens.

      Of course if the UK leaves the EU that ceases to be an issue. The Canada EU free trade deal doesn't force either party to accept citizens of the other coming to claim benefits.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:The case for BREXIT by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Pretty much what is happening - the UK and the EU will do a deal.

      Oh you're one of those "brexit means brexit" morons. Saying "we will do a deal" is basically saying "something will happen".

      No shit!

      I didn't ask you *if* you thought something would happen I asked you what you thought WHAT would happen.

      However you're a Brexiter. That means you didn't think about what would happen then and you seem incapable of doing so now.

      Be specific because it's only the specifics that matter.

      102 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants we can't deport

      Ah I see you've changed your tune from "almost impossible deport criminals" to "there are a small number of people we can'r deport", without breaking stride.

      That is exactly the kind of duplicitious I have learned to expect from Brexiteers.

      US is the top country.

      Irrelevant. The EU bargains as a whole as does the US. In terms of export markets, the EU is the largest. It takes a perticular kind of perverse stupidity to pretend it's otherwise. But, I'd expect nothing less.

      If we have the power to sign our own trade deals with for example the US regulations become something we negotiate.

      Given how the entire world will know we're desperate for trade deals I'm sure that will go reaaaaallly well.

      "The "real battle" over relocating migrants is just the beginning,

      IOW it hasn't happened but you votes as if it had. Well done!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:The case for BREXIT by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      We do not need the ECJ to rule on British law and governance to trade with Europe. Stop fucking pretending otherwise.

      we need whatever the EU will agree to. If they don't agree there is no deal and stop fucking pretending otherwise.

      Well, it is The Express after all.

      You posted it knowing it was doublespeak.

      But feel free to hunt out one of the others.

      I'm not going to scour the internet to back up your lies, thanks. You have to do the work if you want to have any credibility.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:The case for BREXIT by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Informative

      So, when the traffic is jammed from the chunnel to Machester waiting for customs, hows that going to work out for you.
      There is no way the EU will allow the UK to stay in the Union without the EUCJ.
      You brexiters really are a fairly dim bunch.
      As an expat watching from outside the whole area, its depressing to see the UK shoot itself in the foot with a whole rack of shotguns.
      The whole case for Brexit was based on lies, the list goes on, but lets start with 350 million pounds a week for the NHS.
      Any deal the UK gets will be either devastatingly punative, or situation same as before, with the same problems, but now you will have no say at all in Europe.
      Heres a question for you, when a deal is made, do you support a referendum be held to vote on accepting it?
      Im betting you dont, as you know that having realised their mistake on not voting in the first place, the voters would reject this dribbling idiocy, that will reduce the UK to third world status.
      You say the EU is not a country, ignoring the fact that when it comes to trade, they are all under the same laws, effectively acting as one country, sorry that doesnt suit your nutty narrative, or are you just a liar like most of the Brexshitters?
      We saw the writing on the wall in 1970 and got the hell out of a country that has now exported its best and brightest, and is left with its worst and dumbest, just like you.
      Hal, heading for the cliff edge, foot firmly jammed on the throttle, crying "there is no cliff"
      Sad.

    5. Re:The case for BREXIT by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You're acting as if 'no deal' is a bad thing.

      Yes. Everyone with half a brain realises it.

      It's a fucking marvellous thing. That shouldn't stop us looking to do better, but I'd much rather have no deal than a shit deal.

      Well that's pretty stupid. You ought to rather have no deal than something worse. Refusing to take something better than no deal out of self-defeating spite is precisely the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a Brexiter.

      And what, precisely do you think will happen with the Irish border with no deal?

      Spoiler alert: you're a Brexiter so you never actually thought about, well anything!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  9. Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? by Brannon · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      That snopes article is full of so many inaccuracies that even World Weekly News wouldn't publish it. It also doesn't detract from the parent posters point that U1 dumped large sums of money to the Clinton's. Or that large parts of that uranium are now MIA, right off the fucking grid. Figure that one out, because it sure entered Canada and managed to get out of the country but nobody knows where it went. There's an on-going investigation here in Canada because it should have been something that was picked up by the ports.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      This covers some of it. There's a bunch of other crap relating to it you can find on thehill who've done a good job documenting it. Also includes FOIA'd documents(via judicialwatch) from during the Obama era showing that the previous administration along with the state dept., knew something was afoot and ignored it, or were so inept they simply let it happen.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? by Binestar · · Score: 2

      I like how you quoted everything in that big fat correction except the last sentence. Since it appears your computer can't handle a full paragraph worth of copy/paste, I'll paste it here for you:

      "In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal."

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
  10. Not really a problem. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh, the article says that they located Russians buying three ads totaling about a dollar.
    That's not really a problem.

    also, logically, Russians meddling in a British elections would not be treason-- treason would have to be by citizens of the same country.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  11. Can we please stop pretending by nagora · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That Russia is the only country that does this, or that the CIA and MI6 don't have people working away doing the same thing? It's a bit pathetic.

    Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.

    Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!

    Darling: And, fortunately, one of *our* spies--

    Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  12. CIA linked accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many CIA linked accounts were active on Facebook?
    How many CIA linked accounts are still active on Facebook?

  13. Re:Anyone looking into the AL election? by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah right, Chechnya voted 99.8% for his party with 99.7% turnout, not long after Putin waged two wars against them. Think about how many votes Lincoln would get in the South the next election had he survived the assassination.

    You're used to vote fraud meaning a few tens of invalid votes. On the other had, Russia didn't have a remotely fair election anywhere in its history: not by the tsars, not during the revolution, not by the soviets, a close shave by Yeltsin, then fully back to normal by Putin. Same in puppet countries they conquered (most recent example in Crimea).

    “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.” -- Joseph Stalin

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  14. Re: Moscow Donald is going to prison for TREASON by Alypius · · Score: 2

    You clearly failed civics class. Go back and read up on how impeachment and the line of succession works.