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.

9 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this a problem? by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why is this a problem? I just wonder. Voter influencing, whether by a foreign state or by corporations has always been a thing. The only difference now: it's being done online, using an American company (Facebook).

    You might say: "But, but, the United State of America is a sovereign state, it's the voters and alone the voters who need to decide". Sure, but there is propaganda bought by the parties themselves, by multinational corporations having no allegiance to any country, and whoever wants to put money into influencing a vote. Don't forget that the US likes to interfere with elections of other countries too, but that's a-ok, right?

    Is it perhaps, just the admission that voters are easily swayed by bad propaganda that is hard to admit?

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Why is this a problem? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There isn't even any evidence here that the goal of these ads was to influence voting, elections or politics. The ads were all over the place, basically promoting anything which might have gotten a response from someone, including lots of contradictory things like rallies for opposing candidates and causes. Examples from the article: "pushing arguments for and against immigration, LGBT issues and gun rights". It wasn't exactly just politics, either. For example, there were Pro-Beyoncé vs. Anti-Beyoncé ads as well. (Same article, but the longer version.)

      They ads didn't stop with the election, meaning they obviously weren't just an attempt to influence votes.

      This was an operation (lost in the noise of politics as usual) trying to stir up likes and shares, most likely with a spam/profit motive in the long run, not an ideological motive. Again, from the article: "They sought to hook American voters into clicking “Like” or following Russia-created Facebook profiles and pages, which published organic content, like status updates, videos and other posts, which would later appear in users’ News Feeds."

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hi - Director from a digital ad agency here/marketing jerk.

      Our agency dug into some of the released ads. There were three separate parts of this campaign based on the samples of ads we looked at. The first were broad-reaching memes that people of all ages, geographies, and political opinions would like. This was a top of the funnel (pardon the jargon) to bring people in and get more data about them once they liked or interacted with your page - this is a feature of Facebook and many other platforms which is why you are asked to like/subscribe/download. The ad targeting at this level was very broad, the impressions were high, and they engaged a fairly large number of people.

      The next step was segmenting your audience into two groups - Hillary vote suppression and Trump support. Ads at this level were more targeted and took advantage of the large number of user profile options they could match against. You'll see ad targeting for specific areas of the country, people that liked specific shows ('Hannity', 'Fox News') or were fans of 'conservatism' for example.

      The other side was democrat suppression - minorities (primarily african-americans) and Bernie supporters. These got the tailored "Hillary is bad messages". You may notice that there were many ads for "Being Liberal" or other basic left-wing groups with very little supporting copy. This was to snag democratic voters and discourage them to vote for Hillary. They did the same with the "Black Matters" account.

      Read the messaging and look at the ad targets. Tea Party people got ad copy about immigrants running up the deficit. Texans got ad copy about immigrants ruining the "heritage" of their state. African-americans got ad copy about Hillary not supporting minorities. Bernie voters got the Hillary-is-owned-by-Wall-Street stuff.

      The strategy is what made it work. Pump up potential Trump voters and discourage potential Hillary voters.

  2. divide us by geekymachoman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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...."

    I'm bored of saying it but... Yes, it's all Russia's fault.

    Reason Trump got elected - Russia.
    Reason BREXIT happpened - Russia.
    When somebody gets poisoned... you know who did it ? - Russia
    Doping scandals - Russia

    /sarcasm If they did anything, it's profit on already pre-existing divisions, they are certainly not the cause of it. There already were stories about some 17yr old KIDS from Poland or Hungary or something creating fake sites / and raking it thousands of dollars in ad revenue (by exploiting the already existing division between left and right)

    When you come from that part of the world, the money is 100% motivation. When you grow up not having any, all you can think off is getting it, especially if you're a teen and your parents always were and are broke - something most Americans can't understand.
    The political situation in US (and religious in the world) is RIPE for making money on, you just have to have a little bit of imagination and have to be kept down for a very long time.

  3. Where are the released data by Zappy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article is just fluff we all already knew. Show me a link to the actual ads.

  4. Re:REALLY THOUSANDS !!! by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since TFS is suffering from incomplete data, we can't really draw that conclusion. What percentage of the ads submitted by Russian trolls or state agents do they believe this sample represents? 1%? 10%? All of them? There's a huge difference there, and that's before you take into account the number of impressions and how well targetted they were: if McDonald's were to scattergun 100 different ads across 100,000 random people and send a single ad to 10,000,000 people known to frequent fast food joints, I suspect the latter is going to provide a much greater RoI, even allowing for the higher cost.

    Proving that the ads were actually effective in doing so though - in both the Russian and my fast food example - is entirely different matter of course, and far more subjective - especially given that people generally don't like to admit they might have been coerced into a course of action though some form of manipulation.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  5. Re:Reason it's a big deal by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a minor deal, though, not a big deal. It's a mere blip in campaign advertising. The total ad buy was for $46K. Compare that to the $81 MILLION buy from Clinton and Trump.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  6. Re: Wait, no shills? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, why couldn't the Clinton campaign counter that by, I don't know, having policies that people liked and cared about?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  7. Re: Wait, no shills? by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are you daft? He asked for prosecutable evidence. What the DNC did to Sanders is rightly viewed as morally reprehensible by many, but it was perfectly legal.