Slashdot Mirror
US Congressmen Reveal Thousands of Facebook Ads Bought By Russian Trolls (mercurynews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released about 3,400 Facebook ads purchased by Russian agents around the 2016 presidential election on issues from immigration to gun control, a reminder of the complexity of the manipulation that Facebook is trying to contain ahead of the midterm elections. The ads, which span from mid-2015 to mid-2017, illustrate the extent to which Kremlin-aligned forces sought to stoke social, cultural and political unrest on one of the Web's most powerful platforms. With the help of Facebook's targeting tools, Russia's online army reached at least 146 million people on Facebook and Instagram, its photo-sharing service, with ads and other posts, including events promoting protests around the country...
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers would continue probing Russia's online disinformation efforts. In February, Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia and the 2016 election, indicted individuals tied to the IRA for trying to interfere in the presidential race. "They sought to harness Americans' very real frustrations and anger over sensitive political matters in order to influence American thinking, voting and behavior," Schiff said in a statement. "The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us...."
The documents released Thursday also reflect that Russian agents continued advertising on Facebook well after the presidential election... They marketed a page called Born Liberal to likely supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the data show, an ad that had more than 49,000 impressions into 2017. Together, the ads affirmed the fears of some lawmakers, including Republicans, that Russian agents have continued to try to influence U.S. politics even after the 2016 election. Russian agents also had created thousands of accounts on Twitter, and in January, the company revealed that it discovered more than 50,000 automated accounts, or bots, with links to Russia.
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers would continue probing Russia's online disinformation efforts. In February, Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia and the 2016 election, indicted individuals tied to the IRA for trying to interfere in the presidential race. "They sought to harness Americans' very real frustrations and anger over sensitive political matters in order to influence American thinking, voting and behavior," Schiff said in a statement. "The only way we can begin to inoculate ourselves against a future attack is to see first-hand the types of messages, themes and imagery the Russians used to divide us...."
The documents released Thursday also reflect that Russian agents continued advertising on Facebook well after the presidential election... They marketed a page called Born Liberal to likely supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the data show, an ad that had more than 49,000 impressions into 2017. Together, the ads affirmed the fears of some lawmakers, including Republicans, that Russian agents have continued to try to influence U.S. politics even after the 2016 election. Russian agents also had created thousands of accounts on Twitter, and in January, the company revealed that it discovered more than 50,000 automated accounts, or bots, with links to Russia.
In this election, Lemon Pledge actually was the smarter choice...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
So, why couldn't the Clinton campaign counter that by, I don't know, having policies that people liked and cared about?
Because the idea that policies matter is a liberal fantasy. And I say that as a liberal who really cares about policy.
What matters most is whether people like the candidate. Remember all that bullshit about which politicians people would like to have a beer with? Who gives a fuck? Turns out waaaaay too many people care about that kind of shit than they do about policies.
One example: Support for gay marriage in the black community. When Biden first said he supported gay marriage somebody did a poll immediately afterwards and among the results were that roughly 70% of black people opposed it. Then a week or two later Obama announced his support for gay marriage. Within the next month another poll was conducted and now roughly 70% of black people supported gay marriage. Policy preferences are overridden by leader preferences.
Clinton had all kinds of good policies. Seriously, she is a policy wonk and her campaign website had tons of detailed stuff. But a combination of right-wing outrage media doing things like lying about her policies for helping coal miners and the subsequent pick-up of those lies by the mainstream media reporting 'both sides of the controversy' made it seem like she had abhorrent policies.
She also had the likeability problem that faces all successful women in serious jobs - when men are successful their likeability increases, but when women are successful their likeability decreases. Note that it only applies to people who don't work for those women, which in the case of an election is basically the entire electorate.