Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Plans To Use US Mail To Verify IDs of Election Ad Buyers (reuters.com)

Facebook will start using postcards sent by U.S. mail later this year to verify the identities and location of people who want to purchase U.S. election-related advertising on its site, a senior company executive said on Saturday. From a report: The postcard verification is Facebook's latest effort to respond to criticism from lawmakers, security experts and election integrity watchdog groups that it and other social media companies failed to detect and later responded slowly to Russia's use of their platforms to spread divisive political content, including disinformation, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

123 comments

  1. Better idea by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey Facebook! Here's a better idea: Don't allow any election ads in the first place.

    I know being a company you want all the business you can get, but sometimes it may actually be for the common good that you don't try to squeeze every penny out of everything you can squeeze.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    1. Re: Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think Hillary's $9 Bln went.

    2. Re: Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Botty Wipes and Fudge Sundaes

    3. Re: Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's either in a closet somewhere or in a bathroom.

    4. Re:Better idea by geekmux · · Score: 0

      I know being a company you want all the business you can get, but sometimes it may actually be for the common good that you don't try to squeeze every penny out of everything you can squeeze.

      They're a US public company, so the "common good" is irrelevant.

      Greed is all that matters. Forget morals or ethics, we're lucky if a mega-corp operates legally these days.

    5. Re:Better idea by captbollocks · · Score: 1

      They're a US public company, so the "common good" is irrelevant.

      Greed is all that matters. Forget morals or ethics, we're lucky if a mega-corp operates legally these days.

      They can be sued by shareholders for not making as much profit as possible unless of course that profit was illegally obtained.
      Greed is builtin to the system, so anyone who refuses business, regardless of how immoral or unethical they think it is, can end up in front of a court.

    6. Re:Better idea by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      My video game forums do not allow any political discussions. If you post one it's deleted and you get a warning. It's part of the TOS.

      Why would Facebook banning them be any different?

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    7. Re:Better idea by TimHunter · · Score: 3

      No. The 1st Amendment only restricts the government.

    8. Re: Better idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Cloth of sufficiently high quality to wipe servers with is expensive.

    9. Re:Better idea by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1

      you must be new to the internet

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    10. Re:Better idea by Jahta · · Score: 2

      Umm, First Amendment? Pretty sure you'd be running afoul of the First Amendment if you did that....

      That's a popular misconception. The First Amendment means you can say whatever you want, but nobody is legally required to help you say it. Obligatory xkcd link.

    11. Re:Better idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hey Facebook! Here's a better idea: Don't allow any election ads in the first place.

      Hey crackwhore, just don't do crack in the first place! That's analogous to what you just said. Elections are a massive public spending spree and you want an advertisement company to not participate? You'll sooner get Republicans to make gun ownership illegal than what you suggest.

    12. Re:Better idea by PPH · · Score: 1

      Don't allow any election ads in the first place.

      That might have worked back in the old print media days. Where the ad had to be typeset and an editor could review it in advance for compliance with his political views^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign law compliance. But if you are serving them up off a third party server, the ad content could be changed at a moments notice. The server could even return innocuous ad copy to Facebook corporate IP addresses, election officials, etc.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re: Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone failed their civics class in high school.

  2. Does not verify identity ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Informative

    it verifies that you have obtained the information on a post card. Two simple ways of subverting it (you can probably dream up more):

    * Set up postal redirection

    * Offer someone a small payment: ''when you receive a postcard addressed to Mr Smith, use your mobile to send a photograph of it to me"

    1. Re:Does not verify identity ... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      A front company will post back any related integrity documents.
      What next having to show federal and state photo ID to "internet"?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Does not verify identity ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      What next having to show federal and state photo ID to "internet"?

      Surely ID is not required to vote, though. After all, that would be discriminatory.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Does not verify identity ... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      And let me guess, these will be the states that already let businesses just have a mailbox. You know, so they don't have to pay business taxes.

      Which states are those?

      And I forget, are they red or blue? ;)

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    4. Re:Does not verify identity ... by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Two simple ways of subverting it. Set up postal redirection. Offer someone a small payment: ''when you receive a postcard addressed to Mr Smith, use your mobile to send a photograph of it to me"

      "This ad payed for by Republican Nominee Caucaus, 523 Official Avenue, Place".
      "This ad payed for by Democrat Nominee Committee, 123 Expected Drive, Place".
        "This ad payed for by John Smith, 1273 The Blandings #327, Pimlington".

      That will look out-of-place if they publish the addresses. It'd get journalists or politically-minding users calling attention to it pretty promptly.

    5. Re:Does not verify identity ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      And I forget, are they red or blue? ;)

      Blue.

      WA State. I used to live in an apartment complex that had many more mailboxes than apartment units. And people pulling up to fetch their mail whom I'd never seen around the building at other times. And there are official avenues for obtaining mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc. For 'The Homeless'.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Does not verify identity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be... and don't call me Surely.

  3. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is some next level cluelessness. We're fucked.

    What is a campaign ad?

    The russian thing was about sowing dischord and getting people to fight, online and in the streets. It's working.

    Getting a cheeto they owned elected president was just a bonus.

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

      Are you a complete idiot? How could a couple million of stupid ads beat Billions of Hillary's donations?

    2. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how it's got hicks (or rubes) in flyover states posting this sort of drivel to /., I'd say it worked pretty well.

      Protip: if you don't want to be thought of aa hicks and rubes, stop acting like one. Start by not posting your drivel to /.

    3. Re: Idiots by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Most of the underclass (the 'hicks' and 'rubes') live in the inner core cities. There really isn't the infrastructure 'out here' for the helpless ignorant to live out here. There are pockets of poverty out in the countryside, but mostly there are people who could be judged more self-sufficient than the typical urban dweller.

    4. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs Russians when you have smug, condescending, elitist assholes like you?

      I'm serious. Look at the hate and dehumanizing language that you used.

      You are the problem.

    5. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the underclass (the 'hicks' and 'rubes') live in the inner core cities.

      Nope. Poverty is actually widespread in rural areas.

      There really isn't the infrastructure 'out here' for the helpless ignorant to live out here. There are pockets of poverty out in the countryside, but mostly there are people who could be judged more self-sufficient than the typical urban dweller.

      Is that what you tell yourself? Or do you just listen to the wrong people?

    6. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to the hate and elitism in things like "Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees." and "I'll beat the crap out of you.", and "If you do [hurt him], I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it.", or "I'd like to punch him in the face", or "Maybe he should have been roughed up.", etc.. (Never mind "I just grab 'em by the pussy." and "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not get arrested.")

      But you think calling someone a hick is "hate" and "elitist" ? Are you going to try to deny that Twitler said all of those things?

      Methinks little Sasha needs to be a lot more subtle if he or she wants to not get outed as a Russian troll. Little Sasha is the problem, not me calling a hick a hick and a rube a rube. The sooner the hicks and rubes stop falling for Russian trolls the sooner they'll stop being called hicks and rubes.

    7. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs Russians when you have smug, condescending, elitist assholes like you?

      I'm serious. Look at the hate and dehumanizing language that you used.

      You are the problem.

      You're more than welcome to show any attempts you've made to disagree with the derogatory and demeaning references to the dreaded "urban" culture made by others. Oh wait, I suspect you'd offer nothing but crickets and bullfrogs.

      But maybe you could start acting like you practice what you preach.

      No wait, wait, you're only indignant when it's your buttered bread being challenged.

      Now why don't you stop acting like a hick and a rube? It's a choice, you keep making it.

    8. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wuddabout.. Wuddabout... Wuddabout...

      Other people being evil doesn't excuse your evil behavior. Not even a little bit.

      You didn't refute a simple fact: You are the problem. You are the one spewing hate and dehumanizing others.

      Own it. Stop trying to lawyer your way out of it. You are demonstrably the problem.

    9. Re: Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god, the Trumpskins are evolving! They've used whataboutism so long, they now can recognize it!

      Still, hicks and rubes ruined this place. /not the poster above, just commenting on how hicks and rubes are indeed the problem, and the nomenclature is accurate

  4. Because TV stations do this too, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course this will work, right Facebook? Because this is what TV and Cable stations use to verify all their political adverts. They've been doing this for decades because NOBODY would ever fake an address or hire someone to receive the postcard and pass along the information on that postcard. There's no way this could fail. (rolls eyes)

  5. Riiiiiiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cause the money-laundering Russian mafia isn't gonna simply pivot and start laundering postcards as well...

    "I make 5K a week working from home! Want to know my secret?"

    Well, at least Facebook can say they really are creating jobs now.

    This is literally the dumbest fucking thing i've heard this week. And its technically a new week! Seriously, Facebook really does need to hire a 5 year old to sit on their board and any flaws in the plans they make he points out should result in the entire plan being scrapped for sheer stupidity and the person who came up with the plan should be beaten with a rubber hose and then fired.

  6. Yeah, that's gonna work just fine by Blain · · Score: 1

    as long as Boris and Natasha haven't heard of the post-office box.

  7. Re:Give information by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ivan will simply find a sucker to take out the ad for him, for a small fee. This is feel good fake news security theatre.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CLASSIFIED
    OFFERINg MY ADDRESs TO RUSSIANs FOR A SMALl FEE, OR BO, OR FREe OF CHARGE.

    SJWs DIE.

  9. Good to know who is behind the ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean anonymity. As long as citizens of mother Russia can legally buy things in the US there should be no difference.

  10. Watch rents spike before elections by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    When suddenly a lot of people need apartments for a month or two...

    That is, provided FB really demands a physical address and doesn't simply accept PO-Boxes.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. WORK FROM HOME OPPORTUNITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will do what they do with credit card/ebay fraud and lure desperate people to do it for them.

  12. One small flaw by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    The russian embassy has a postal address.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. that will work for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    zuckerburg is a genius LOL

  14. Re:Give information by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If only the people who support this supported voter ID laws.

    --
    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;
  15. Sigh by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    As if the poor Russian embassy employees had not already enough to do, now they'll also have to throw postcards in.

  16. This won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who can afford a ad can buy a fake store front to prove a US address. Gee what a token form of proof which can easily be obtained. Did Facebook not read the Mueller indictments of the Russian's who were here? I am sure Facebook will be happy to provide this fake solution so they can still accept payment for the ads. Because isn't that all Facebook is really interested in?

  17. Re: Give information by link-error · · Score: 1

    My kingdom for a mod point!

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  18. SOUNDS HIGHLY ILLEGAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fuck with the US Mail and you go to JAIL! Let those commie bastards try to fuck with US Postal Service! Just let them try and see what happens!

    TRUMP RULEZ UBERNESSLY!

  19. Executive Decision by MrEcho.net · · Score: 1

    You can tell when a executive / MBA type person makes decisions, they are not completely well thought out...

  20. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, but that's beside the point. This forces Ivan to go through US Mail in order to violate US election laws. This compounds the legal issues and allows more avenues for investigation.

    More importantly to Facebook, they're likely hoping this lets the Feds deal with any fraud, rather than facing new laws passed to prevent Facebook and other companies from selling ads without any real verification.

    This isn't at all about stopping Ivan. It's about reducing Facebook's legal burden.

  21. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What election laws? Genuinely curious.

  22. Re:Give information by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook VP: "The Majority Of Russian Ad Spend Happened AFTER The Election"

    "many of these ads did not violate our content policies. That means that for most of them, if they had been run by authentic individuals, anywhere, they could have remained on the platform."

    "Shouldn't you stop foreigners from meddling in US social issues?
    The right to speak out on global issues that cross borders is an important principle. Organizations such as UNICEF, Oxfam or religious organizations depend on the ability to communicate â" and advertise â" their views in a wide range of countries. While we may not always agree with the positions of those who would speak on issues here, we believe in their right to do so â" just as we believe in the right of Americans to express opinions on issues in other countries."

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  23. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the US can indict a foreigner in a foreign country that has a Constitution that prohibits extradition?

    Yeah, the fear of a jail term will scare them.

    If the average fat, stupid American turns to social media for election information than let them suffer the wrath of their own stupidity.

  24. Endless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the 2020 election will end all of the whining about the 2016 election? Or will there just be twice as much whining?
    I had hoped that the 2016 election itself would end all the pre-election whining, but it only made it worse. Never seen anything like this.

  25. Re:Give information by Freischutz · · Score: 2

    Ivan will simply find a sucker to take out the ad for him, for a small fee. This is feel good fake news security theatre.

    Precisely, if it doesn't already, the Russian embassy will soon have an attaché for shell company management, political action committee administration and political advertisement design, sucker recruitment will be outsourced to the fisheries attache (aka. the FSB operations guy).

  26. Re: Give information by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

    Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina's adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

    They do say

    We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

    However if you look at their paper

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

    Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were "asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office," in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were "allowed to vote using a provisional ballot." Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square 161, p < .001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identifi- cation were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit noncitizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses

    I.e. voter ID laws don't work if by voter ID you mean "driving license" and the state gives out driving licenses to non citizens which are indistinguishable from the ones they hand out to citizens. Which is not impossible. E.g.

    https://immigration.procon.org...

    The law provides driver's licenses to people who filed Colorado state income taxes in the previous year and can show proof of current state residence, or who have an Individual Taxpayer ID and proof of 24 months of state residency, with a passport, consular ID, or military ID. The license will state "Not valid for federal identification, voting, or public benefits purposes."

    The paper also contains th

    --
    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;
  27. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of fun to be had.
    Provide the names of those being investigated, care of likely campaign office, and then a few Russian sounding names. With no reply being suspicious, a hold on all ads would need to take place, and any investigation would put more heat on those being investigated, even if they were innocent.
    No doubt many Mexican overstayers will use any address for a bit of change, and be quite genuine about it - if it is in their interests.

  28. The majority of Russian ad happened AFTER election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US spent billions interfering with other country's elections, so just STFU with the Russian narrative.

    Facebook VP: "The Majority Of Russian Ad Spend Happened AFTER The Election"

    Fake news MSM silence on #Qanon, the biggest intel leak of all time, proven legit time and time again:

    https://qanonmap.github.io/

    Feb 14 2018 23:59:04
    Q !UW.yye1fxo
    90
    WARNING_EU_
    _EU_POSSIBLE_CAR_ATTACK_72
    STRIKE_PACKAGE_B-7V
    WARNING_UK_IMM_CHATTER_
    XRAY_7
    Q, DELTA

  29. It's easy to get an PO box in the usa! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    It's easy to get an PO box in the usa!

  30. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Shouldn't you stop foreigners from meddling in US social issues?"

    Shouldn't you stop people who live in one state from contributing to candidates running in another state? If I live in California, what business do I have contributing to a congressional candidate running in Pennsylvania?

    It's a serious question.

  31. It is not about real security by aepervius · · Score: 1

    It is about pretending they are doing something to lawmakers.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:It is not about real security by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I hate FB but I actually feel a bit sorry for them in this case

      Before this election you had this situation

      A lot of people posted on FB but knew it was a waste of time. FB banned people for saying bad words like tr*nny, f*ggot or n*gger but those people were kinda tedious anyway. FB had a few people arguing about politics, mostly left wingers but a few right wingers who had to be very careful what they said given the left wing nature of the site. People under about 20 wouldn't touch the platform and neither would anyone who cared about privacy.

      Then the election happened. FB was full of people arguing about political memes. This caused all the normies who want to post pictures of lunch to give up the site. FB started banning people, mostly conservatives, for bogus reasons. People started to joke about the censorship and rigging of the trending stories. More and more people started to say 'I use it for messaging but never post'.

      And then after the election the left blamed them for Trump. So suddenly both the left and right hate them. And it's clear anyone under 30 or over about 40 won't touch the platform. The yoof have moved off to Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. Conservatives have moved off to conservative sites. The left blame them for Trump/fake news/Boris and Natasha stealing the election/not paying tax, etc. Suddenly almost everyone I know refuses to use the site and the weird thing is their reasons are incompatible - FB can't both be a left wing echo chamber that bans dissent (the conservative view) and a evil hive of Russians and Nazis spreading pro Trump fake news (the left wing view). It can't be too full of nutters arguing about politics (the normie view) and too full of dipshits posting pictures of their overpriced lunch (my view).

      So they're being forced to crack down on 'Russian trolls' but the odds are by the next US election FB will be seen as completely irrelevant politically because everyone will have moved on. And worse of all the yoof won't use the site. All the signs are FB has hit peak usage and it's all downhill from here.

      --
      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: It is not about real security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real solution was to say, "We are not responsible for user submitted content. Use at your own risk. We will remove violent images and child porn. The rest is up to you."

      They wanted to play politics and manipulate people to become leftists.

      Fuck them. This is the bed that they shit in. Now they can sleep in it.

  32. Mail scanning services by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    Forget PO boxes, there are mail forwarding services that will scan your physical mail and email it to you.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  33. Delaware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is precisely what Delaware specialises in - providing proxy fake addresses for organisations to evade legal scrutiny. There's more than a million corporations registered in one building in Delaware. Mostly for evading taxes but it also works equally well for covert political funding.

  34. Top of first article nullifies your entire post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First thing in your washington post article it says there is no evidence and the authors of that editorial were biased.

    Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

    1. Re:Top of first article nullifies your entire post by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.

      Rebuttals

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Author's response which seems to cover them all :

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.

      tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.

      And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.

      It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.

      https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

      If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

      Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

      Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it

      https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

      As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

      In the original article they point out things like

      This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens

      --
      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:Top of first article nullifies your entire post by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Also if you look here

      https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

      The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our critics have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them. The underlying study on which the extrapolation is based has been the subject of some cogent criticisms, and this leads me to believe that the actual rate of non-citizen involvement is on the low end of our initial estimates rather than anywhere close to the high end.

      The critics paper is the ' peer-reviewed article [sciencedirect.com] argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article [sciencedirect.com]) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections'

      Well it turns out they've issued a response to that

      https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

      Conclusion

      Ansolabehere et. al. (2015) make a useful point - that group-membership measurement error rates must be considered very carefully when analyzing small subsamples. However, there are ways to estimate this error rate, and to validate the estimated error rate using other measures. We have shown that each of four independent approaches to evaluating electoral participation by non-citizens indicates that in fact a small number of non-citizens do most likely participate in US elections. Analysis of group-specific error rates, repeatedly measured individuals, higher frequency behaviors, and hypotheses that follow from the assumption that responses are driven by group-identification errors all yield the same independent conclusion, refuting the Ansolabehere et.al. (2015) contention that the Richman et. al. (2014) non-citizen participation results "are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error" among citizens. A more thorough analysis of the data makes clear that response error in the citizen-status question cannot account for the entirety of observed non-citizen verified and reported voting in the CCES. Hence, the CCES survey does provide substantial evidence that in the United States non-citizens hold verified registration status, cast verified votes, report they are registered, and report they are voters.

      The analysis offered above should not be a stopping point, however. There are design choices that can improve the capability to engage in test-retest validation of group status and assessment of differential group-level rates of measurement error. Inclusion of specific followup questions aimed at verifying group membership status in the CCES should be pursued by those interested in making specific inferences about small subpopulations in large sample surveys. In the context of the non-citizen subsample such questions could include closed-ended and open-ended follow-up inquiries aimed at confirming or disconfirming self-identified noncitizen status and thereby ensuring that measurement error does not contaminate estimates of non-citizen sub-population behaviors.

      Incidentally in the first source they say

      If the percentage of non-citizens voting for Clinton is held constant, roughly 18.5 percent of non-citizens would have had to vote for their votes to have made up the entire Clinton popular vote margin. I don't think that this rate is at all plausible. Even if we assume that 90 percent voted for Clinton and only 10 percent for Trump, a more than fourteen percent turnout would be necessary to account for Clinton's popular vote margin. This is much higher than the estimates we offered. Again, it seems too high to be plausible.

      --
      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;
    3. Re:Top of first article nullifies your entire post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, like I say, the low end still means 620K illegals voting in 2008.

      Then find them. Go forth and find them.

      Or you know, prosecute individuals that have been found.

      Like this one.

    4. Re:Top of first article nullifies your entire post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Then find them. Go forth and find them

      Why do you think your crooked criminal Democrats are declaring all their territory "Sanctuary", so that you can't?

    5. Re:Top of first article nullifies your entire post by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      https://www.nationalreview.com...

      North Carolina features one of the closest Senate races in the country this year, between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis. So what guerrilla filmmaker James O'Keefe, the man who has uncovered voter irregularities in states ranging from Colorado to New Hampshire, has learned in North Carolina is disturbing. This month, North Carolina officials found at least 145 illegal aliens, still in the country thanks to the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, registered to vote. Hundreds of other non-citizens may be on the rolls.

      A voter-registration card is routinely issued without any identification check, and undocumented workers can use it for many purposes, including obtaining a driver's license and qualifying for a job. And if a non-citizen has a voter-registration card, there are plenty of campaign operatives who will encourage him or her to vote illegally.

      O'Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.

      Greg Amick: Here's a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver's license, but do you have any sort of identification?
      Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver's license.
      Amick: Oh, you do. Show 'em that and you're good.
      PV: But the only problem, you know, I don't want to vote if I'm not legal. I think that's going to be a problem. I'm not sure.
      Amick: It won't be, it shouldn't be an issue at all.
      PV: No?
      Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you'll be fine.

      But North Carolina officials shouldn't be "fine" with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony "for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote."

      Amick stepped down

      http://www.charlotteobserver.c...

      Tillis won by 45608 votes or 1.5% of the total.

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

      I.e. it was a classic case of an election the Democrats could have won by getting non citizens to vote. North Carolina has about 527,000 non citizens, so about 17K voters assuming 3.3%

      https://www.kff.org/other/stat...

      In a close race, they could swing it. Amick doesn't seem to have been prosecuted.

      --
      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;
  35. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is fine, because it literally makes no difference, changed nothing, and Trump will still win.

    Now at least they have to invent a new boogeyman to explain their loss, or just admit what everyone already knows: They're corrupt, unelectable, race baiting, anti American shitbags.

  36. Re:Give information by Charlotte · · Score: 1

    Yes, but that's beside the point. This forces Ivan to go through US Mail in order to violate US election laws.

    This. By forcing would-be ad purchasers to first commit a few federal crimes, Facebook is off the hook. They can then claim that they acted in good faith to allow the ad. It's an elegant solution from Facebook's point of view.

  37. There was an error in retrieving the comments for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try, Russians!

  38. A political move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My god.... how dumb is that.. even I have like a mail delivery address and I donâ(TM)t live there. And you know what... I donâ(TM)t have Russia money...

  39. Yup. Pure security theater... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    From the Internet Research Agency Indictment:

    5. Certain Derfendants traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpos of collecting intelligence to inform Defendants' operations.
    Defendants also procured and used computed infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.

    ...

    12. b. For example, on or about May 29, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through an ORGANIZATION-controlled social media account, arranged for a real U.S. person to stand in front of the White House in the District of Columbia under false pretenses to hold a sign that read "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss."
    Defendents and their co-conspirators informed the real U.S. person that the sign was for someone who "is a leader here and our boss... our funder."
    PRIGHOZHIN's Russian passport identifies his date of birth as June 1, 1961.

    ...

    30. c. Only KRYLOVA and BOGACHEVA received visas, and from approximately June 4, 2014 through june 26, 2014 KRYLOVA and BOGACHEVA traveled in and around the United States, including stops in Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to gather intelligence.
    After the trip, KRYLOVA and BURCHIK exchanged an intelligence report regarding the trip.
    d. Another co-conspirator who worked for the ORGANIZATION traveled to Atlanta, Georgia from approximately November 26, 2014 through November 30, 2014.
    Following the trip, the co-conspirator provided POLOZOV a summary of his trip's itinerary and expenses.

    ...

    41. In and around 2016. Defendants and their co-conspirators also used, possessed, and transferred, without lawful authority, the social security numbers and dates of birth of real U.S. persons without those persons' knowledge or consent.
    Using these means of identification, Defendants and their co-conspirators opened accounts at PayPal, a digital payment service provider, created false means of identification, including fake driver's licenses, and posted on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts using the identities of these U.S. victims.
    Defendants and their co-conspirators also obtained, and attempted to obtain, false identification documents to use as proof of identity in connection with maintaining accounts and purchasing advertisements on social media sites.

    And then there's that bit where they organized rallies, offered money to cover rally expenses, paid someone to "BUILD A CAGE ON A FLATBED TRUCK" and another person to "WEAR A COSTUME PORTRAYING CLINTON IN A PRISON UNIFORM".

    They can steal identities, travel around U.S., pay people to construct motorized cages and other people to dress up and be driven around in those cages... but they'll somehow not be able to mail in a postcard?

    Which part of "run like a KGB operation by former KGB people for current FSB people" is Facebook pretending to not understand?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Yup. Pure security theater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that shit sounded exactly like politicians do political things. Add a few gropings, sexual faux pauxs, and some bribes - you got yourself a campaign..

    2. Re: Yup. Pure security theater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part that sounds like standard dirty campaign tactics in the United States circa 1950.

  40. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Criticize the political right or be declared and reported as "Russian"

    ftfy

  41. Facecrooks by kaptink · · Score: 2

    If facebook wanted to stop messing with elections, they would just ban election advertising.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
  42. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones that make it illegal for foreigners to say "Clinton is a cunt and Trump is too" during an election.

  43. In the past every village was a world in by Max_W · · Score: 1

    itself, not the world became a village.

    Who could think that a relatively poor nation would be capable influence elections thousand of miles away, over the oceans, in a large land, without even investing in radio-stations along the borders?

  44. Your own source debunked itself... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Right there... in the opening paragraph.

    Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors.
    Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors' data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Your own source debunked itself... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      See here

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      tl;dr - not really.

      --
      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;
  45. Looks like Hillary won the election after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She has the whole world kowtowing to her over this "Russia" shit (besides, Trump has to call her advice). And nobody can talk about anything else. Shame on all of you for falling for it. And on Slashdot for being such propagandists. I am convinced there are bots pushing these stories up in the firehose. It can't be for real. It just means it will be business as usual next election. with no attempt to rout out republican/democrat corruption. Give her credit, people, and give yourselves a big hand for enabling her.

    This is why majority rule is not sustainable. We have corrupt/stupid people choosing our leaders. It is a shame we will need a professional military to correct this problem. Nobody gives up their power in a peaceful manner.

  46. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ID to run a political add, but don't need ID to vote?

    I would suggest trying to educate everyone on how to verify ads/news articles before taking them as fact... but Democrats would never go for that since deceiving people is how they gain votes.

    Weird the people care more about who runs the ad then what is in the ad.

    1. Re:Really? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Weird the people care more about who runs the ad then what is in the ad.

      Not "the people". But the mainstream media. They used to have a monopoly on advertising expenditures. For everything from political ads to dish soap. But this Internet thing cropped up and people have figured out how to get a message out without the prior approval of the MSM bigwigs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  47. Re: Give information by KiloByte · · Score: 2

    The ones that make it illegal for foreigners to say "Clinton is a cunt and Trump is too" during an election.

    I'd say that's common knowledge for anyone with more than two brain cells, core voters of both being beyond redemption.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  48. A way back.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ivan will simply find a sucker to take out the ad for him, for a small fee. This is feel good fake news security theatre.

    Actually, maybe there may be a way to fix this. Do what the republicans want. A national voter id card. It should be free, easy to get, and same day. We might need cryptography too, but if all comments were linked to one of those, that would be something. They could even be somewhat anonymous, though if that case they would have to be limited to a year or two, and your not allowed a replacement until that time is up.

  49. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... Hillary's campaign outspent Trump by half a billion dollars. She still lost. It is not just about money.

  50. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job avoiding the question! and always steer it all to: HILLARIEEE!! (the more popular one)

  51. Uranium One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job trying to go back to the bullshit Russia narrative. Not.

    Uranium One, Hillary gave 20% of national uranium reserves to the Russians for personal profit, why isn't the media covering it? Who is the real traitor?

    1. Re:Uranium One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true.

    2. Re:Uranium One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job trying to go back to the bullshit Russia narrative. Not.

      Uranium One, Hillary gave 20% of national uranium reserves to the Russians for personal profit, why isn't the media covering it? Who is the real traitor?

      One of the problems with this world is we have people that contribute negative net value to the world such as this parent poster. fact check

      Off hand there were like a crap ton of agencies going over that deal and the state department was just one of a crap ton. From what I recall, there is no evidence that the deal even reached her desk an no uranium is being shipped to Russia.

      What russia did was use lies and just straight out propaganda to:
      1. cause chaos to weaken us
      2. hurt hillary, because she stood up to putin.
      3. Help Trump, probably because they figured he will destroy america for them.

      Mission Accomplished and Continuing.

      Constant Vigilance is the price of freedom. Sadly we failed to pay and are now in bankruptcy.

  52. Read here: You're full of shit. by denzacar · · Score: 0

    Also here: You're full of shit.

    The "study" the whole thing was based on was torn down on account the author "no do math too good". Some people just don't understand that whole "stat is ticks" thing. What's up with them ticks anyway?
    Also, on account of being a cherry picker at doing that.

    The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys

    Abstract

    The advent of large sample surveys, such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), has opened the possibility of measuring very low frequency events, characteristics, and behaviors in the population. This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman et al. (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections.
    The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

    OUCH! Sick burn!

    Oh... BTW... that's under the link you cherry picked to ignore.
    Aaaaawwww... poow snowflake. How's all that winnin goin for ya? That ulcer kicked in yet?

    Also, besides cherry picking, and not doing numbers that good, you apparently can't read that good either.
    Spouting completely bullshit numbers not found in links you claim are the source, spinning in circles around same handful of links thinking no one will bother to notice, when all else fails running back to blog posts by the author of the original bullshit study desperate to defend the debunked study...

    You're not just full of shit.
    You're a delusional asshole who thinks that lying the same lies continuously and repeatedly they will eventually become truth.
    Guess what... You're full of shit on that one too.

    TLDR: See the subject. Also, you're full of shit.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Read here: You're full of shit. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      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:Read here: You're full of shit. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Oh look... No-Argument Nancy tries to downmode reality again. Awwww... cute.
      But with the magic of infinite copy-paste... Viola!

      Did I mention that I have infinite copy-paste?

      Also here: You're full of shit.

      The "study" the whole thing was based on was torn down on account the author "no do math too good". Some people just don't understand that whole "stat is ticks" thing. What's up with them ticks anyway?
      Also, on account of being a cherry picker at doing that.

      The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys

      Abstract

      The advent of large sample surveys, such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), has opened the possibility of measuring very low frequency events, characteristics, and behaviors in the population. This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman et al. (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections.
      The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error;
      further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

      OUCH! Sick burn!

      Oh... BTW... that's under the link you cherry picked to ignore.
      Aaaaawwww... poow snowflake. How's all that winnin goin for ya? That ulcer kicked in yet?

      Also, besides cherry picking, and not doing numbers that good, you apparently can't read that good either.
      Spouting completely bullshit numbers not found in links you claim are the source, spinning in circles around same handful of links thinking no one will bother to notice, when all else fails running back to blog posts by the author of the original bullshit study desperate to defend the debunked study...

      You're not just full of shit.
      You're a delusional asshole who thinks that lying the same lies continuously and repeatedly they will eventually become truth.
      Guess what... You're full of shit on that one too.

      TLDR: See the subject. Also, you're full of shit.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  53. Voice of America still going strong by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The United States spends billions every year to influence or outright overthrow other countries every year. The United States needs a stadium-sized cup of STFU when it comes to "meddling". This is the point where western exceptionalists start blurting "whatabboutery", so I'll go ahead and tell you first to cram hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Syrians and Libyan's up your asses while you're whining about $5000 in Facebook ads.

  54. Not enough by Khyber · · Score: 1

    The entire advertising industry needs to be regulated, and hard.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  55. verification? by ohgary · · Score: 1

    How is the heck does this stop anything. I am sure the russians can afford to rent and apartment for a few months during the next election.

  56. Re: Top of first article nullifies your entire pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voting for the deadis a felony. Yet you won't call for their prosecution

    Mysterious that. All you had to do was offer to call and demand that District Attorney David Learner prosecute an admitted felon. A confessed felon.

    Can't do it?

  57. Even better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since card based IDs can be made through shady means anyone outside of America can get a fake ID and it will happen no matter what laws are put in place. This is why we as a nation need to be a leader and ditch the card ID system in favor of a microchip implant before anyone can vote, get a social media account, buy, sell, trade, get assistance, or even get a job. That way illegal aliens, terrorists, racists, communists, child molesters, rapists, or any other deplorable cannot abuse the system or anyone else again. Time to lead the way, time to become more secure and embrace microchip implants.

  58. Re: Top of first article nullifies your entire pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imaginary excuses for your inability to actually identify the alleged criminals only serve to discredit you.

  59. Please explain: people who pay taxes can't vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what happened to "No taxation without representation"?  If they are paying their tax they should be able to vote.  Foreign powers already use Washington lobbyists with millions of dollars, it's time to let people who actually live in the US to be able to influence US election.

  60. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like Steele did with his paid report? By Muellers logic, he should be charged with election meddling too.

  61. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am waiting when US is charged with meddling in the Israeli election as well as others.

    I will just hold my breath /s

  62. Re: Top of first article nullifies your entire pos by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    I think anyone who commits a felony should be prosecuted - Democrats, Republicans and the rest.

    Interestingly from your link it seems like more ineligible voters vote Democrat (64%) than Republican (18%) or independent/Libertarian (18%)

    http://www.newsobserver.com/ne...

    The 508 ineligible voters identified in the report are spread across the state, with 36 in Wake County, 34 in Durham and two in Orange. The report says that 64 percent were registered Democrats, 18 percent were registered Republicans and the rest were either unaffiliated or Libertarians.

    Which tells me that Democrats benefit a lot more from voter fraud than anyone else, which is why they're so opposed to voter ID laws.

    And why they support things like California's Motor Voter law (AB-1461) which auto adds anyone who applies for a driving licence to the voting rolls. California gives driving license to illegals. While AB-1461 doesn't explicitly allow them to vote it specifically indemnifies them against fraud charges if they do vote after they are added to to the rolls 'by accident' by the state.

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

    Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.
    This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.

    I.e. it doesn't legalize illegals voting but it does decriminalize it in the sense they can't be prosecuted. Presumably California Democrats will be telling non citizens it's 'fine' if they vote just like NC Democrats did. And then if the do vote, they can't be prosecuted and the state can just say it was a clerical error.

    --
    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;
  63. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you're worried about Russia, what about all the people who aren't US citizens who were marching to change our immigration laws? You know, the "illegal and proud" type people at rallies and marches.

    Or is it only a problem when Russians dare to express their opinions?

  64. Re: Top of first article nullifies your entire po by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think anyone who commits a felony should be prosecuted - Democrats, Republicans and the rest.

    Yet an actual confessed felon remains unprosecuted without a complaint from you.

    Apparently you can't put your money where your mouth is.

  65. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you cannot call Clinton a cunt.

  66. Effective... by meerling · · Score: 1

    This is about as effective as using a wet newspaper to try and stop a bullet.

    1. Re:Effective... by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

      But, a really big wet newspaper might actually be able to stop a bullet :-)

      --
      An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  67. Re: Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike Russia, most of these illegals but proud, actually pay taxes and eke out a decent living in America as positively contributing members of the society.

    If youâ(TM)d care to think â" these people want to add & strengthen America. Russia doesnâ(TM)t.

    What I find most surprising that the Republican party used to be most anti-Russia before Trump and now suddenly conservatives are standing up for Russia? Or just another handiwork of Russian shills?

  68. Facebook basically gets to decide who wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice situation to find yourself in.

  69. Re:Give information by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    While you're worried about Russia, what about all the people who aren't US citizens who were marching to change our immigration laws? You know, the "illegal and proud" type people at rallies and marches.

    Or is it only a problem when Russians dare to express their opinions?

    Nice Conway there Trumpkin, but all I was really trying to do was point out how utterly useless this effort by Facebook is. I have no interest in watching you and your buddies circle jerk over immigration law.

  70. Yawn... You're pathetic. Even for a troll. by denzacar · · Score: 0

    Spinning in circles, getting high on the scent of your own farts...

    Pathetic.

    Sad.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Yawn... You're pathetic. Even for a troll. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Aww... A poor snowflake can't take the reality so it mods down. Boo fucking hoo...
      Luckily! There's copy-paste! Infinite amounts of it!

      Thus we all know that Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) is a pathetic little troll who posts circular links to his own posts, pretending to make a point when actually just trolling.

      Spinning in circles, getting high on the scent of its own farts...

      Pathetic.

      Sad.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  71. Re:Give information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll gladly accept voter ID laws as soon as we have some laws requiring absolute mental competency for all firearm purchases.

  72. Fail to learn from history by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Russians have had agents in America since the 1920s. From the Patent office to espionage. It's no secret.

  73. I know how to fix it by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    Shut down Facebook and Twitter 3 months before the election. Nothing important will be lost.

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  74. Squatting vs Meddling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geezus. We have almost 12 million people who have, essentially, broken and entered into our "house" (they're illegal aliens, and this is our sovereign nation state) and are squatting here, and yet some of us are more concerned about "meddling?"

    To me, it's like somebody getting raped in the ass and complaining because their perpetrator has bad breath.

  75. Re:Give information by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    i havent had facebook since like i dunno 10 years or more ... recently i met my niece(s) at my aunts 80th birthday , for some reason ... most of them too about 10 years since i saw them lol, so one said like its easy and i was like well okay, lets not push the digital age too far so i tried opening an account but ... first it had me stuck at upload a picture of yourself, then i had to get around through a uk vpn to actually do that, and then they would get back to me in 48 hours ... and thats been like four weeks now
    i think they have been become quite self-important there ... someone took them too seriously or what ?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?