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.
but they didn't have any mod points.
Moreover, Russian troll =/= Russian agent. Conflating those two definitions is disingenuous.
Putin has a poisonous attitude towards russians not following his script.
It's not disingenuous. It's realistic.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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)
You realize that the GP was talking about _actual_ poison right? Very literally real, probably radioactive, poison.
"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...."
/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)
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
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.
The article is just fluff we all already knew. Show me a link to the actual ads.
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!
... about the writer's use of a four-dot ellipsis. What the heck were you thinking?
...
The Russians outsource their trolling to the infamous Internet Research Agency, a private company. They use a mixture of ads and fake accounts. The fake accounts pump the ads, making them look more legitimate because "westerners" are engaging with them.
The ads are also an appeal to authority. They make it look like real candidates, institutions and news outlets are pushing the Russian message. They also link people back to sources like RT and Brietbart, giving them added legitimacy too.
The fake accounts pump a lot of memes too. Their viral nature and unconstrained content makes them powerful tools.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Everyone here seems to think this is no big deal, and that's a bit odd. The main reason it's a big deal is because it skirts campaign finance laws, which encourages American politicians to court relationships with foreign states who want them elected. If you have a foreign state financing your campaign, that's something the American people really should know. More information and more transparency is better.
The next reason why it's a big deal is that Russia's reason for doing this wasn't about getting Trump elected (they reportedly thought it was impossible) -- it was to weaken the US by stoking more hatred amongst Americans. They're encouraging the far left & right and suppressing the middle group. They've actually succeeded in making you all believe that your "side" winning is more important than working together. Divided you fall.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The uncomfortable nature of this issue is that it is very difficult to quantify the impact that Russian propaganda had on the US electorate, and the big question over whether it altered the outcome of the election is probably impossible to answer. Counterfactuals are hard, we can't easily go back and spin off a different parallel universe without the Russian operations to form a control and compare the differences. The election was close enough (but not as close as 2000) that we might not be able to reach a conclusion even if we were willing to expend significant effort and resources in trying to answer that question.
Contrast this with the French elections, the Russians tried to some similar efforts to help out Le Pen versus Macron, but Macron won 66% to Le Pen's 34%, so it's pretty clear that the Russians had no substantial effect on the final outcome in that match up. The only plausible thing that they could have made a major effect on that I can think of would be in the first round of the Presidential election, where most of the top candidates had in ballpark of 20% of the vote but Le Pen at 21% and Macron at 24% were the top two and made it to the runoff. It's a lot more plausible that Russian psyops could shave a percent or two off the next in line, Fillon or Mélenchon, who had around 20% of the first round, to put Le Pen in the second spot. FT has an interesting graph showing how the different electorates split between first and then second round candidates.
Of course, the Russians wouldn't resort to psychological warfare if they thought the effort would be inherently pointless. As highly a people like to think of their own intellects and inability to be manipulated by information and disinformation, there wouldn't be so much propaganda if it didn't work.
We should ignore it because it's hard to prove?
Seems like the safest thing to do is make sure it doesn't happen again. For that we have to understand the problem first.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Russians bought ads in the US to push an agenda and sow discontent. So what?
The First Amendment doesn't just protect the right of Americans to speak, it protects the right of Americans to hear all views and propaganda, including that of foreigners. This is also not new. Russia has been trying to sow discontent and anger (including using race as an issue) in the US since the Russian revolution. Conversely, the US has been trying to manipulate public opinion and political systems abroad for a long time. Voice of America is one of the more benign examples; the US government has brought down entire governments through media manipulation.
The US clearly in the past has stood by the principle that broadcasting and distributing political propaganda internationally is legitimate and protected. Censorship of foreign broadcasts is wrong and harmful for the same reason that censorship of domestic broadcasts is wrong and harmful. And that's a principle we should continue to stand by.
I wasn't suggesting that we should ignore the problem, just pointing out that it's not something that can easily be proven and people are highly likely to question any such findings. Studies have shown time and time again that the techniques used here are effective at influencing opinion in a general case, even though people continually claim that ads don't have any effect on them [1] and so are less likely to accept any such finding in the more specific case involving them specifically. As you say, the safest thing to do is try to make sure that it doesn't happen again, which does involve an understanding of problem, and bandaids like bans on "political" ads from outside that jurisdiction and mandatory banners citing who paid for the ad are only really scratching the surface.
[1] Potentially true only in two scenarios: the product isn't something that you would be interested in, or its for something a product that you would only purchase in a manner that will negate any subconcious influence from marketing - e.g. purely on evaluation of specifications.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Even assuming all that were true, isn't it pretty fucking humiliating to admit that a dozen russians with broken english and a 5 figure budget were SO much more effective than the $Billions worth of marketing people on Hillary's side doing the exact same shit (including plenty of foreigners)? It's like if Hitler blamed his defeat on all the little Polish kids throwing rocks at his tanks.
If the Russians are so amazingly brilliant and persuasive that they can swing an election with nothing but a comparatively infinitesimal amount of facebook ads, maybe they *should* be running the world.
"Who? which democrats? Where is your prosecutable evidence?"
Are you fucking mental???? Wasserman Shultz interfered with the democratic primary and GAVE IT TO CLINTON without giving Sanders any possible consideration.
"After WikiLeaks published Democratic National Committee emails which suggested that DNC staffers and partly Wasserman Schultz herself[90][91][92][93][94] had expressed support for Hillary Clinton in the primary campaigns while criticizing the Bernie Sanders campaign, Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, to become effective as of the close of the nominating convention in Philadelphia. According to reports in The Washington Post, Wasserman Schultz strongly resisted suggestions she resign, requiring a phone call from President Barack Obama to finally force her resignation.[95]"
How did classified State department email end up on the PERSONAL LAPTOP of the pervert husband of Clintons top advisor that got swept under the rug?
"On September 21, 2016, the Daily Mail published an article claiming that Weiner had engaged in sexting with a 15-year-old girl from North Carolina, and devices owned by Weiner were seized as part of an investigation into this incident.[72][73][74] The report prompted a criminal investigation and Weiner's laptop was seized. Emails that were pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email controversy were discovered on the laptop; this prompted FBI Director James Comey to reopen that investigation late into the 2016 US presidential election.[75] Hillary Clinton has cited Comey's decision as one reason why she lost the election to Donald Trump.[76]"
LOL there's you're PROOF that the 2016 elections were interfered with BY DEMOCRATS and the FBI
What we do know is that the total buy was $46K for the Russians vs. $81M for Clinton and Trump -- 1,760 times larger.
Yeah, we need to rally the country around the threat of Russian ad buyers, to be sure.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Yes. This. The idea that anyone could manipulate an entire population so easily and precisely with such flimsy, shallow methods is the stuff of pulp spy novels. The real powers of persuation are in the mainstream media - mostly TV - and in fictional movies and TV shows. That stuff runs deep and has long-lasting effects. For example, the Pentagon spends $billions in providing support to movie makers in exchange for editorial control to make sure its messages get to the American public. We're all subject to state and corporate propaganda all the time. Russian interference would be an insignificant drop in the ocean.
You're right that the two are not the same. Calling them "trolls" is disingenuous. Internet "trolls" are people who screw with others on the Internet for fun, to get a reaction. These people are professionals working on behalf of the Russian government. They're intelligence agents.
We should stop talking about "Russian trolls" and talk in terms of "Russian agents" and "Russian spies". It's more accurate, and gives a better sense of the malice with which they're acting. They're not trolls who are trolling, they're Russian spies engaged in a covert propaganda and influence campaign.
If ads as incredibly stupid as the few that anybody has actually shown were so amazingly effective as to decide the election, then Russian/Schmussian; every US entity will be running ads just like them next time.
They'd be idiots not to.
In reality of course, the Dems just plain lost (albeit by a small margin, as is normal lately), something they just can't seem to come to grips with.
If this Russian narrative were true, I'd be hiring every single Russian involved. To advertise chewing gum, if nothing else. They are apparently the most awesome and most cost effective advertisers, ever.
Please, please. The research is out there. The election only depended on 70,000 people in a few districts in three states. The Russians were super brilliant and knew those 70,000 people were all that mattered so they just needed to hit them and not the other 120 million people who voted.
If you are working on behalf of a foreign government, doing so without registering as a foreign agent is a crime. Now since not everyone knows this, the normal enforcement action is a letter informing you that you need to fill out a form and send it in before you continue; but technically it's a felony.
Since the Internet Research Agency is a well-establish psy-ops company, they know very well that they're breaking US law.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Unlike the US intelligence agencies leaking all starts of anti-Trump stuff that is proven false. Like the Steel dossier? In fact, now that judges are demanding in-redacted files from the FBI, we are starting to see the full scope.
Those stories have received much more exposure than any amount of Facebooks ads could have done.
Obama did more for the Russians than Trump ever could (pulling out of the missile defense program in Poland, the Iran deal, reducing or military.) Trump has undone much of that. If Trump is bought and paid for by Russia, he certainly isn't showing it.
I find it amazing how the FBI and CIA is no longer considered "the Man" but noble freedom patriots by the left.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
According to Wikipedia they had over 1000 employees in 2015. It doesn't mention the budget.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Even assuming all that were true, isn't it pretty fucking humiliating to admit that a dozen russians with broken english and a 5 figure budget were SO much more effective than the $Billions worth of marketing people on Hillary's side doing the exact same shit (including plenty of foreigners)?
That argument also doesn't make sense because the Russian ads were trolling both ways, trying to stir up discord, pitting Americans against each other.
They ran Black Lives Matter ads, ads on both sides of the gun control debate, etc. Nearly half their ads were the same type of things the Hillary campaign was saying. Rather than compete with the United States, Russia would rather compete with the Divided States.
The Russians were trying to make black people mad with #BLM stuff, Hillary was trying to make black mad with #BLM stuff. Russia wanted a bunch of ultra-feminist women angry at men, Hillary wanted a bunch of ultra-feminist women angry at men. There's no "Russians beat Hillary", the Russians were running slightly more extreme versions of the same type of ads Hillary was running half the time.
The Russians know we're stronger when we're united. They don't have to fight against us if they can get us to fight against ourselves.
They want Mexicans coming in waving the Mexican flag chanting "Viva Mexico" while working-class Americans get angry and scared. What the Russians don't want is the United States to be United, proud new Americans working alongside those who have been here longer. They want to divide us - chop us up into black America, women vs men, rich vs poor, etc. None of that involves beating Hillary. A lot of it involves taking a lesson from Hillary.
Because Clinton herself was so detestable that she couldn't beat Junior Senator from Illinois, barely beat a washed up Flaming socialist, and a groping nearly equally detestible businessman from New York.
But please, run her again. Third Time is a Charm!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Clinton bought her support at the DNC. You may not care about that kind of corruption, but more than a couple people do. This is an organization (a private one!) that has the power to choose one of two candidates for POTUS. Sounds like you're an apologist for this type of corruption.
Considering that wouldn't even cover half a day's payroll for the Internet Research Agency, if that really is the full extent of their ad spend then I'd assume it's because ads are just a very small part of their efforts.
More interesting would be a comparison of how many people Clinton had working on social media. Less than 1000?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
I love when partisans (regardless of affiliation) display poor comprehension of the facts and their consequences.
Wasserman Shultz interfered with the democratic primary and GAVE IT TO CLINTON without giving Sanders any possible consideration.
That's an internal party matter; there is no applicable criminal law.
If you experience and don't like it, you can demand new leadership or leave the party. Or push for a law, if you really think it's necessary.
Personally, I think that a party should be free to mismanage itself out of office.
How did classified State department email end up on the PERSONAL LAPTOP of the pervert husband of Clintons top advisor that got swept under the rug?
"The report prompted a criminal investigation and Weiner's laptop was seized. Emails that were pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email controversy were discovered on the laptop..."
The article says "pertinent" not "classified". Your claim is not supported by the report.
LOL there's you're PROOF that the 2016 elections were interfered with BY DEMOCRATS and the FBI
1. The Democrats were free to shoot themselves in the foot.
2. Comey did his job by concluding the investigation after reviewing the original evidence.
3. Comey did his job right by reopening the investigation when the FBI discovered there could be more evidence on Weiner's device. (And closing it again when they found the emails were duplicates of what was already on the server.)
If Comey's actions had any effect on the election, that's too bad. He did his job properly.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.