Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Has Identified Ongoing Political Influence Campaign (nytimes.com)
Facebook is preparing to announce that it has identified a coordinated political influence campaign, with dozens of inauthentic accounts and pages that are believed to be engaging in political activity ahead of November's midterm elections, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing three people briefed on the matter. From the report: In a series of briefings on Capitol Hill this week, the company told lawmakers that it detected the influence campaign as part of its investigations into election interference. It has been unable to tie the accounts to Russia, whose Internet Research Agency was at the center of an indictment earlier this year for interfering in the 2016 election, but company officials told Capitol Hill that Russia was possibly involved, according to two of the officials. Facebook is expected to announce its findings on Tuesday afternoon. The company has been working with the F.B.I. to investigate the activity. Like the Russian interference campaign in 2016, the recently detected campaign dealt with divisive social issues. Update: Facebook has confirmed the story, adding: Today we removed 32 Pages and accounts from Facebook and Instagram because they were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior. This kind of behavior is not allowed on Facebook because we don't want people or organizations creating networks of accounts to mislead others about who they are, or what they're doing. We're still in the very early stages of our investigation and don't have all the facts -- including who may be behind this. But we are sharing what we know today given the connection between these bad actors and protests that are planned in Washington next week. We will update this post with more details when we have them, or if the facts we have change. It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder.
Don't be surprised if it turns out the DNC and GOP are behind this election interference!
Dark Reflection
Generally, most people agree that there is a huge difference between people eligible to vote in an election trying to influence each other, and foreigners who aren't supposed to be involved in the election doing it.
I wonder why it is you didn't know that?
They are for FB. But why they need to try to tie everything to Russia is beyond me. Why don't we care about all the other countries and/or intenational groups or individuals that are also attempting the same stuff. Why not a single story that talks about anyone but Russia?
The saddest part of all of this is the idea that people are forming political opinions based on what they read on FB. That to me is the biggest problem we have.
I miss the good old days when journalists reported the news rather than trying to create it.
Would be nice if we could collectively be intelligent enough to form our own opinions.
Would be nicer if we could collectively be intelligent enough to not use social media as a source of news and information.
The biggest threat to democracy is people who can't handle information. People who listen only to their own filter bubble and believe anything that somehow fits their narrative, no matter how ridiculous and overblown it might be. Remember Pizzagate? The idea that some of the "elite" run a child porn ring in a pizza parlor? It does not get much more ridiculous than that, but lo and behold, you found people who believe it, amplify it, retell it and eventually, well, if EVERYONE says it, it MUST be true, right?
The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies. And I have to include western Europe here now, too. We're used to a press that is allowed to tell us the truth. What we failed to understand is that being allowed to does not mean being forced to. Just because you MAY say how it is doesn't mean that you MUST. And since scandals sell more and get more eyeballs than simple information, news outlets that offered information rather than sensationalism are getting pushed into the background. Or even had to bend to the trend and become more sensational themselves.
Maybe it is time that we teach our kids to be more critical. To verify what they hear. But NOT do what a bunch of those "critical" people do instead, i.e. thinking that they're critical and "free thinking" if they reject A because it's mainstream and instead believe B because it's "alternative facts".
Verifying information is hard. Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier. The problem isn't Facebook, Twitter or even various fake news outlets.
The problem is that we all too readily believe what we want to hear.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have two explanations for the general reaction of some to reports of interference in the election (and in particular Russian influence).
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls.
2. If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Since for the dedicated Trump base, that's an impossible scenario to even contemplate, outright rejection of any evidence is the only way out of the cognitive dissonance that such evidence creates.
But really, at this point, we have the President and his spokesmen outright saying "Collusion isn't illegal", so there's not even denial now, but simply trying to frame what everyone knows to be true as business as usual. So why anyone seems interested in denying it is beyond me, when Trump himself has pretty much admitted it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's clear that whoever set up these accounts went to much greater lengths to obscure their true identities than the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) has in the past. We believe this could be partly due to changes we've made over the last year to make this kind of abuse much harder.
Also known as an arms race.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I wondered, why is it that the summary mentions not just what kinds of false organizations were present that had to be removed?
Following the story link you can see for yourself:
"Aztlan Warriors", "Black Elevation", "Mindful Being", and "Resisters."
Huh! That's odd, not one of those groups represent Trump or Republicans in any way. Kind of funny that was not mentioned in the summary. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
It makes you wonder if groups are going to all the trouble to create false fronts on Facebook, how many people you see at protests are really there because what they are protesting, or how many are there to be paid to stir up trouble - I have thought a lot of Antifa people are probably not really wanting to burn cars/buildings, but that there are selected individuals added to stir up the mob just to create chaos.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
People are saying collusion isn't illegal...
Collusion is just descriptive shorthand for "conspiracy to defraud the United States" which is an actual crime that is being investigated.
Simply believing what you're told, especially if it fits your personal point of view, is much easier.
That's hard for people who have been conditioned to believe what they are told from a young age. You know, like in a church...
Or a public school...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
traditional news agencies that are held accountable.
The best comedy is always in the comments.
Personally I'd rather not have large donors of any sort provide financing for campaign advertising. But if you're going to allow that, it should be clear who is providing the financing and the content should be labeled as such - campaign advertising.
Even if you're not going to be that strict, I'd definitely draw the line at foreign government/interests using social media as tool to manipulate and disrupt our elections, - which is quite a bit different than using social media to promote your own candidacy.
If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.
It may, but probably not in any actionable way. Even if collusion is proven, the most that could happen would be impeachment and then Pence or Ryan or whoever would become president. The only way we would see a lot of chaos there is probably if Democrats gain a House majority and then both Trump and Pence are implicated in something where both of them get impeached, then we would end up with a Democrat as president. There are a lot of huge "ifs" there though.
Personally, I find it more likely that Mueller will find evidence of things more serious than collusion with Russia (but completely unrelated to the election) and that will take priority, which wouldn't de-legitimize the administration.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And what's better, corporate-controlled media?
Yeah.
Seriously, I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. Even for-profit media (yes, run by an actual corporation!) is preferable to a bunch of uninformed idiots "just asking questions" without a single shred of proof between them. Look at back in 2016 when "fake news" was a bunch of people creating inflammatory posts to spread through social media with the goal of page views and advertising dollars. Look at how well those people did (5-figure incomes every month), and look at who they targeted. They targeted conservative groups and gave them stories that stroked their existing biases or presumptions, and those people spread that disinformation like wildfire. It only would have taken a single person to discover that, hey, this "local news website" does not have a homepage, and in fact it has only a single story on the entire site - the one that was linked to.
People are very easy to fool, and various groups of people will not check facts or question what they're reading. When that's the case, yes, even professional news corporations are preferable to a bunch of idiots in their bubbles reinforcing each others' biases without a single fact involved.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I don't mean delegitimization as in impeachment and removal. If the Dems take the House, impeachment becomes a possibility, but even if they do manage to take the Senate, it would probably be by the same margins the Republicans hold it now, which means they won't have the 2/3s vote to remove Trump, so I think removal is incredibly unlikely.
The effect of delegitimizing Trump is more an issue of political capital. If Mueller draws a straight enough line, even if it isn't straight enough to pull the plug on Trump's presidency, and in particular if the Dems do very well this November, delegitimization will greatly reduce cooperation between Congress and the Administration. Even with a Republican-dominated Congress, there's already talk of Congress taking back some of the powers (particularly trade powers) that had been "loaned" to the President, and you can be sure that such delegated powers would start to be stripped from the Executive, particularly if the balance tips towards the Democrats. The President has a lot of constitutional powers all his own, but a lot of what he does is essentially statutory in nature; Congress has passed laws allowing the Executive to do lots of things in many areas of government, and if Congress decides it can no longer trust the Executive, whether out of misdeed or incompetence, or in this situation, simply because the Presidency lacks the political credibility, that is where a loss of legitimacy could see the White House become isolated. And Trump would hardly be the first president to find himself largely shoved in to a corner, and the powers of Congress and the courts to restrain the Executive could make it pretty miserable for him.
The problem for the Republicans in general is that they're stuck between the rock (Trump himself) and the hard place (that solid Republican base that is loyal to Trump). The base can't win a lot of races for them, but they will win a lot less races if that base abandons them. So right now, with mid-terms just a few months away, they have to at least keep bailing water out of the hold to maximize their chances. I think to some extent they're probably overestimating the threat the Democrat's represent; the House is in play (and will likely flip) but the Senate is most likely to stay in Republican hands, though with pretty similar margins as they have now. I think the act of tying themselves so firmly to Trump will in the long run do them more harm than good, and at least a modest break with him, at least on specific files, would probably assist them, but obviously they have their own metrics for that that indicate otherwise.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That Russian Agent ( Maria ) Has stronger ties to Oabma (met with his administration) than the NRA (basically did nothing with them).
The disinformation is strong with this one.
Make of that what you will... that and the fact that Obama did nothing about Russian interference despite being warned about a year in advance the Russians were trying to interfere.
Thanks disinformation guy but Obama actually did warn us but McConnell would only agree to a severely watered down warning.
What you and others have overlooked is that Obama obviously worked with Trump and Russia to prevent Hillary from being elected.
LOL! Where did you get that idea from, infowars?
It also fits with Obama being a stronger supporter of Russian actions that Trump. Trump has actually double-crossed Russia, once he was elected Trump proceeded to act directly against Russian interests (just ask 200 dead Russian mercenaries in Syria).
What you refuse to acknowledge is that Trump doesn't always agree with what the administration does. He's out of the loop on what actually happens because he refuses to even read basic information about what is happening.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I'm sure there's a portion of that 30% base that could potentially slip, but in general my assumption is that the GOP has done a good enough at attacking Rosenstein and Mueller that the bar for the kind of evidence for malfeasance to see any significant portion of that base abandon Trump would be very high indeed. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidity as it were, but simply that the environment is so polarized that even hard evidence isn't likely to see any significant erosion in his support.
For the Republicans, 2018 may not even be the chief issue. A worst case scenario for them is to have the Dems retake Congress, even by nominal numbers in the Senate (I don't think it's going to happen, it's too stacked against the Democrats to make it likely). Even if the Dems take the House, that will be enough to disrupt the Administration's ability to get its policies through Congress. Trump would likely respond with a series of government shut downs, but if his political capital erodes, even with that 30% base intact, the Dems will likely be able to make a good argument that Administration intransigence and incompetence, with an aim to making even greater gains in 2020.
Honestly I don't see a good way out of this for the Republicans short of Trump deciding not to run in 2020. The signals still seem strong that he will, and certainly, unless things change greatly over the next two years, I see no reason to think Trump would be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2020. That surely must be what worries Republicans and their contributors, hence the now growing breach between major Republican donors like the Kochs and the party. I could well imagine mainstream Republicans and donors like the Kochs starting a sort of shadow war against Trump's renomination in 2020, with an effort to dislodge Trump's base enough to actually see a primary challenge with some momentum, but again, that's really based on separating Trump from some significant portion of his base. I think it's a long shot, and I see better than even odds that Trump, should he want to, being on the ticket for 2020.
Of course this is all prognostication. Maybe the Dems have a failure to launch this November, and either don't retake the House, or take it by much leaner margins than they're hoping for. If it's a very small majority of Dems in the House, Trump could try on a bill by bill basis to sway some Democrats to support his initiatives. It would require a level of brinkmanship that Trump hasn't shown much talent for yet, and moderating his message enough to convince moderate Democrats that they have more to gain by some level of cooperation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hillary made me despise her all on her own with her snobby bull and that "deplorables" statement.
How did you experience her behaviour, or hear about her 'deplorables' comment? Was it in person, or was it presented through some reportage?
Where those reporting that behaviour doing so because they noted an uptick in interest from pieces like that? Did they remain 'topical' for longer as a result of manipulation of systems used to judge 'newsworthiness'?
More, it's easier to smear someone than to persuade that someone is worthwhile. Persuading someone to vote for Trump is difficult. Making Hillary a less appealing candidate is easier (and contrariwise - this isn't a comment on the relative worth of either candidate, just the relative ease of shifting opinion).
Influence doesn't work by persuading one individual at a time to change their mind. It's a subtle process that plays numbers, tips balances and frames discourse. If you can add some phrases and soundbites that the already persuaded can use to shut down criticism, so much the better.
But are we supposed to believe that the Russians have some kind of magical powers to sway every single fucking vote? I think not.
This is an argument from incredulity. No one is claiming that they have the power to sway every vote. The argument is that they made an attempt to sway the vote. The degree to which this could be or was successful is another matter entirely, but the way it would work is certainly not your strawman.
But they're still companies with their own biases -- with FB I choose my own newsfeed's bias (or lack thereof).
No way. "FB" chooses it, and makes it appear to you that you are choosing it.
"FB" can feed different things to different people. "Mainstream media" usually cannot - and if it develops that capability then it is also beginning to become dangerous. Using targeted communication, opinions can be swayed seriously over time if a sustained intelligent campaign is continued. Even if not "swayed" - they would be pushed to extreme ends of their spectrum in "FB"'s quest for your attention.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.