Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reporters Posed as 100 Senators To Run Ads on Facebook. Facebook Approved All of Them. (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-lows-for-the-juggernaut dept.

William Turton, reporting for Vice News: One of Facebook's major efforts to add transparency to political advertisements is a required "Paid for by" disclosure at the top of each ad supposedly telling users who is paying for political ads that show up in their news feeds. But on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, a VICE News investigation found the "Paid for by" feature is easily manipulated and appears to allow anyone to lie about who is paying for a political ad, or to pose as someone paying for the ad. To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads "Paid for by" by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook's approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as "Paid for by" by a major U.S. politician. What's more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as "Cookies for Political Transparency" and "Ninja Turtles PAC." VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.

83 comments

  1. Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While vice has degenerated into mostly fauxtrage about non-issues, it's good to see they occasionally investigate real problems.

    1. Re:Good on them. by lgw · · Score: 0

      While vice has degenerated into mostly fauxtrage about non-issues, it's good to see they occasionally investigate real problems.

      Is this Facebook's problem to solve? The problem of identity fraud when buying ads? I guess it is if Facebook is taking no measures at all: they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud, which is one of the few reasons we need a government.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Good on them. by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud,"

      They care about preventing the kind of fraud where they don't get their money.
      This is not that kind of fraud and so they don't give a shit.

    3. Re:Good on them. by ranton · · Score: 1

      But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud

      But they sure can be held to a much higher standard than Facebook currently is. I work at a financial institution and our fraud prevention techniques are certainly not foolproof. Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.

      I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    4. Re: Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can just be skeptical of everything you see on the internet, because you're not a fucking infant.

    5. Re:Good on them. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between not being able to prevent all fraud and making no real effort to prevent ANY fraud.

    6. Re:Good on them. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Know your customer.

    7. Re:Good on them. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Do people even read the post they reply to any more?

      they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud

      I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.

      Yeah, there is certainly a strawman here.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Good on them. by lgw · · Score: 1

      I guess it is if Facebook is taking no measures at all: they should at least make fraud hard. But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud

      There is a difference between not being able to prevent all fraud and making no real effort to prevent ANY fraud

      Why did you reply to my post to sat the same thing I said, in almost the same words?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Good on them. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.

      Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.

      YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.

    10. Re: Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The internet is not to be trusted, it is too easy to post there. Ads are not to be trusted, anyone making ads have an agenda - usually something about money or power.

      Ads on an internet forum - forget about it. You'd be a fool to pay attention at all.

    11. Re:Good on them. by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      But ultimately no business can entirely prevent fraud

      But they sure can be held to a much higher standard than Facebook currently is. I work at a financial institution and our fraud prevention techniques are certainly not foolproof. Although if we ever found out that one group attempted to receive distributions for 100 of our clients, while contacting us with the email address 'youreasucker@cantbelievethisworks.com', and we were willing to give them our clients money, we would and should be shut down.

      I'm not saying Facebook should be held to the same standard as a hospital or bank, but it is bullshit to hide behind the argument that no one can prevent all fraud. It is a straw-man argument.

      You might not give someone's money without careful authorization, but you would certainly take money on someones behalf.. say making a payment on a loan? No problem and no questions asked, right? Your vaunted fraud prevention wouldn't prevent that. See the difference?

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    12. Re:Good on them. by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Fraud requires some potential benefit to the perpetrator or damage to the victim. YOU giving someone other people's money meets both standards. FB approving an ad has neither.

      YOU also have a bit more capability to determine identity than Facebook has. YOU have access to SSN, for example, gathered when people opened the accounts. FB does not, or at least, should not.

      It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:

      Imagine an add that says "Lets cut the heads off of all the immigrant children, and then rape their corpses! -Paid for by Senator whomever."

      Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.

      Facebook should certainly implement some verification step before allowing adds to go live. Perhaps they have -the journalists above did not actually pay for and place any adds, they just performed a single step of the process of signing up to place adds one hundred times.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    13. Re:Good on them. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It could certainly cause harm to accept false adds:

      What harm was caused by Facebook approving the 100 ads?

      Most adds falsely placed for political shit-stirring would probably be less extreme, but you see my point.

      No, I don't. Where was the harm? What is your point?

    14. Re:Good on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . You questioned whether it was facebooks problem to solve, then added some wishy washy maybes, the person that answered rightly pointed out clearly YES IT IS as they aren't even making a basic effort. So no he didn't write the same words with the get off the hook message you had.

  2. Not Surprised by Dust038 · · Score: 2

    Given how easily the Russian Trolls descended upon Social Media and went largely undetected, it comes to no surprise to me that ads are not screened. All About Money. Nothing to see new and inventive here.

    1. Re:Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must have been russian trolls, couldn't have been israeli or chinese or canadian or dutch or japanese or australian trolls.

      Your head must look like a ping pong ball with a frowny face drawn on it.

    2. Re:Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm sure you could buy ads advertising the sale of people on Facebook as long as you showed up with cash.

    3. Re:Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviets always said that America would sell them the rope to hang us with. Greed is our great weakness, and Putin knows it.

  3. No surprise here... by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's good to know that our elected representatives can be bought and paid for on Facebook.

    1. Re:No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The good news is that you too can do this. Say you don't like Senator Blowhardski's policy on GunClimateGate, we'll you can just take out an ad on Facebook that says "Sen. Blowhardski Changes Position on GunClimateGate!" and say it's "Paid for by Sen. Blowhardski". Once that thing get a couple hundred thousand "Likes" you just know the good senator will change his mind.

    2. Re:No surprise here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Facebook allows lies for political ads in regards to "paid for by X"
      >you: our elected representatives can be bought and paid for on Facebook
      wut?
      Are you retarded?

    3. Re:No surprise here... by BlackOverflow · · Score: 0

      It's called sarcasm.

  4. Social media is toxic waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope someone vandalizes Zuckerbergs yamulke

  5. Wait, wait by war4peace · · Score: 1

    I am confused. It looks like an entity said if I prove to be X, would you run ads specifying > with X as sponsor?” and Facebook said if you prove to be X, sure!”.
    Isn't it how it's actually supposed to be working?

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are confused. The article clearly states they did not actually prove they were the politician whose name appeared in the "Paid for by" statement. Read this paragraph:

      To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads “Paid for by” by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook’s approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as “Paid for by” by a major U.S. politician.

      So all they did was say: "We're representing Senator Dimwit, please approve our ad", and they got approval to purchase future ads with the "Paid for by Senator Dimwit" statement.

    2. Re:Wait, wait by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I understand that. But is this enough to follow through until the end, or id Facebook going to ask for proof further down the process?

      It could go like this:
      1. "We're representing Senator Dimwit, please approve our ad"
      2. "You are approved"
      3. "Please run ad ABC"
      4. "Prove you are representing Senator Dimwit before we implement the ad"

      So is this the case or not?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:Wait, wait by suutar · · Score: 1

      so they have to prove it before each ad order, instead of one time? That seems unlikely.

    4. Re:Wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to have authorization from a candidate's campaign to run an ad for them. All that's required is that your ad has a disclaimer stating that fact.

    5. Re:Wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seems eminently likely to me. Approving the ad and actually running it are two separate operations, it makes sense that each one would have its own independent set of requirements. And the logical place to put the "proof" step is "before the ad is run".

      Of course, if you've already been through the process once, all you'd have to do is reference the proof that you submitted last time (and demonstrate, to some threshold, that you're the same entity).

    6. Re:Wait, wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so it's like the DMCA then. It doesn't have to be infringing, you just have to swear you are representing a copyright holder. Good to see it's all consistent (even if the consistency is the same as baby-poo).

    7. Re:Wait, wait by war4peace · · Score: 1

      No, they have to prove before the first ad, I assume they have an account number or some identifier linked to the account owner. All subsequent ads requested from the same account are automatically approved.
      Of course, these are all assumptions, however I have found no references within the article.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:Wait, wait by suutar · · Score: 1

      that seems more feasible. I still think it would be simpler for them to just require the proof before issuing the approval, but inefficient processes are hardly a new thing. Thanks for the clarification :)

  6. Political Ads have no truth filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Broadcasters can't censor political ads, and there's no rules covering "political truth", so it's now anything goes.
    Also, the limits on PAC spending have been removed, so these ads are showing up everywhere
    I'm seeing and hearing outrageous and obvious lies in this recent run. Thanks Trump!

    1. Re:Political Ads have no truth filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's now anything goes.

      That is as it should be. Nobody is forcing you to believe the ads. You do it by choice. Don't go blaming others for your bad choices!

    2. Re:Political Ads have no truth filters by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Broadcasters can't censor political ads, and there's no rules covering "political truth", so it's now anything goes. Also, the limits on PAC spending have been removed, so these ads are showing up everywhere I'm seeing and hearing outrageous and obvious lies in this recent run. Thanks Trump!

      Political ads have never had "truth filters". It's always been "anything goes".

      Political ads are literally what free speech is for. It was intended for angry leaflets, not exotic dancers.

  7. Well by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.

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

      No, Facebook is not a "social experiment." That's silly. Facebook is a business that intends to make money.

      And, given how much money it has made, I would say it is quite successful.

      Given the "typicals" of what people want, and how smart they are, I expect that facebook will never die. Or, if it does die, it will be replaced by something quite similar.

    2. Re:Well by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment.

      These days . . . I'm starting to think that our whole global society is a failed social experiment.

      In that sense . . . Facebook correctly represents us . . . whether we like what we see, or not.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Well by tsqr · · Score: 1

      This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.

      Yes, it certainly looks as if Facebook is declining in popularity.

    4. Re:Well by bayankaran · · Score: 2

      Not so fast.

      FB is useful for certain sections traditionally finding it difficult to get their voice heard.

      I know activists in many languages including English - good / bad according to your political philosophy - who command a huge following on FB where they don't need an outlet in mainstream media to have their opinions heard. This is important for anyone who's not in the mainstream...for an example, take US, what if you don't get included in a NYT or Fox or WSJ...you may get some minor players.

      You can always retort "why they cannot start a website or blog". But Facebook removes the effort needed (including the multiplier effects of having an audience, sharing, a much superior commenting system, archival etc.) of running a website/blog. There's no platform with the sophistication of Facebook where such community activity can be planned and rolled out.

      Using a car analogy...its like using a Mac instead of Slackware.

      I am typing this from a Linux Mint installation...its good for mainstream use, we need a Linux Mint type of Facebook...very usable, but not evil/spyware/manipulative.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    5. Re:Well by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      Wait... it seems to me that Facebook is a wildly successful social engineering experiment! But I guess I agree that maybe it should be shut down now that it has demonstrated so many are vulnerable. But then again it's a great indicator of who is or isn't vulnerable to this exploit.

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

      This is even more reason to delete Facebook. Facebook is ultimately a failed social experiment. Here's to hoping it continues a decline in popularity.

      Yes, it certainly looks as if Facebook is declining in popularity.

      That chart ends at Q2 of this year. According to FB itself, its traffic and user base both declined in Q3 for the first time ever.

  8. They had their chance to fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook has become an national security risk at this point. Since they refuse to fix it, it's time for the government to get involved. We don't need more congressional testimony from Fuckerberg. They are a clear and present danger. Shut them down until they "get it".

  9. See nothing wrong in this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is a place to reach a lot of people, why wouldn't a politician run a ad on such a broad platform??? What sort of problem would this be for a US politician to do so in the first place? I see political ads all over Youtube videos and even ads for politicians on web sites.

  10. Command Economies Always Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They rob you of your earnings, savings, freedom, and homeland. Just ask all the Venezuelans who are fleeing the Chavez/Maduro tyranny. Government confiscation is theft, no matter how it's legalized.

    1. Re: Command Economies Always Fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build the wall! That's not a command economy, where the government decides what to build and where to build it after all. Right?

      Or are you a hypocrite?

  11. So Vice are russian bots then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else to explain how the facebook system was so easily hacked?

    1. Re:So Vice are russian bots then? by zferrini · · Score: 0

      It's more that Facebook is money hungry. As with all corporations around the world, if they can make a buck, they will and then later say OMG we did that...We are sorry. These companies will twist the truth to fit their bottom line.

  12. Facebooks business is selling ads by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    They are not going to turn away money at the end of the day unless they are legally required to do so.

    Do think any bars would card if the force of law did not obligate them to it? I doubt many would. I am sure a little human decency would stop most from selling liquor to children; but few would turn away teens.

    facebook is in the same boat here. Yes its illegal for a political campaign to take foreign money. In a lot of cases its illegal for them to coordinate efforts with foreign actors.

    I have yet to see anyone point a law that specifically prevents 99% of those face book ads from being underwritten by foreign persons. The only political speech foreigners are bared from AFAICT is explicit campaign activities IE running an ad advocating voting for or against a specific candidate. They can run issues ads all day long. Its not even clear its illegal for them to suggest a candidate is a criminal, or a Nazi, or whatever if they stop short of saying "vote no.." etc.

    IMHO facebook did nothing wrong - they sold ad space. The people crying about Russian interference are sore loosers. The problem is not the American electorate being exposed to facebook ads, the problem is that they are easily swayed by facebook ads. This is the inevitable result of years and years of "everyone should vote" propaganda. No! Everyone should not vote; the right of everyone to vote should be protected strongly but people who don't take the time to study politics and the issues have no damn business at the polls. Voting is right! not a responsibility. If you don't want to put the effort in there should be no shame in that but at the same time its irresponsible to weigh in at all if the totality of information behind your opinion is a facebook meme.

    The correct answer is to start educating people what voting is for and what its not for. Its for allowing those who want to take the time to contribute to informed policy making access to do so; its not for choosing the "Next top President" or electing "The first XXXXXX"

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Facebooks business is selling ads by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      If bullshit banner ads are suggestive enough to get someone to vote in a manner they otherwise would not; facebook in particular and advertising in general are the absolute bottom of the stack in terms of things to be concerned about.

      Crazy to think that in 2018 people have become so complacent, so gullible and so naive that the internet's oldest profession has to be regulated (for our security, of course). Needing mommy government to come in and remove the sharp corners from everything just serves to make us even more docile and complacent, and in turn -- require ever more government 'help' to handle life in a complicated and scary world.

    2. Re:Facebooks business is selling ads by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Sorry, voting is not a right to be earned. It may suck that stupid uninformed people vote. There will always be some (a few or a lot). The amount could be reduced by better education, including civics and critical thinking/logic courses which we do not really do.

      But, making it an earned right buts the permission of people to vote in the hands of the elected. Once you block people from voting based on some arbitrary knowledge, you can use that vague test to effectively block people by gender, race, etc. Not a slope I want to slide down. We already blocked Native Americans, African Americans, women, and still mostly block felons and others. Let's not make it worse please. Instead lets work to actually create an informed electorate.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:Facebooks business is selling ads by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am not saying voting should be an earned right; specifically here. I do think that it perhaps could be, tied to taxation.

      I am simply arguing that voting should not be encouraged for its own sake. Any citizen that wants to vote and is interested should be invited and permitted to do so.

      What I don't like is this "voting is a responsibility, everyone must go to the polls" line that is always pushed. Yes voting is a responsibility and you should only do it if you are taking it seriously. If you are they type to just go vote a strait party ticket because that is what your mom or dad always did; F-you, you are part of the problem. An uniformed vote is far worse for our society than a non vote. Either dedicate some hours to each election before you go to the polls or don't go.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  13. Illegal? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is it illegal to use a false identity to post an ad. No doubt it is against Facebooks Terms and Services- but could one be arrested for posting a fake ad on Facebook? What charge?

    I have no intention of posting fake ads myself, but would there be repercussions if an individual on these shores posted a fake ad and got caught?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it helps the GOP it is illegal and they will have a Special Investigation.

      If it helps the DNC anyone who points it out will be called a racist.

    2. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is manifestly not illegal and not against the terms of service. A high fraction of their ads are sold this way through brokers.

    3. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is manifestly not illegal and not against the terms of service.

      That is not entirely true as it depends on the content of the ads and whether that false identity is someone elses real identity. e.g. you had the guy being prosecuted for posting a sex ad and listing the details of an FBI agent.

    4. Re:Illegal? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Is it illegal to use a false identity to post an ad. ... repercussions

      That's why it says they didn't actually post any fake ads. They just got approval for whatever ads they bought to be listed as being paid for by a Senator.

      I can haz literacy?!?!

    5. Re:Illegal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Could the politicians sue them for pretending to be them? Or sue Facebook for not bothering to properly verify identity and wrongly labelling the ad?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Illegal? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I can haz literacy?!?!

      Apparently not since I asked "Is It" and did not make a statement saying "It Is".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but could one be arrested for posting a fake ad on Facebook? What charge?

      there are laws about political advertising for a very good reason

    8. Re:Illegal? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Apparently not since I asked "Is It" and did not make a statement saying "It Is".

      Questions end in question marks, not periods.

    9. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it illegal to use a false identity to post an ad. No doubt it is against Facebooks Terms and Services- but could one be arrested for posting a fake ad on Facebook? What charge?

      The charge would be identity theft/fraud - because you assume somebody elses identity.
      Depending on ad content, you may also get slander on top of that.

      Is it illegal to use a false identity to withdraw money from a bank, or get a loan, or buy guns? Sure, it is the same identity theft as above. With some thievery thrown in, for the money withdrawal case.

    10. Re:Illegal? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Ah, I found the 12 year old on daddy's computer.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:Illegal? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Tag, you're it. Your the one arguing about whether you asked a question or made a statement. All of us who live on our own and not in our parent's basement know what a question mark is. Sorry it took public embarrassment for you to find out.

  14. Who are they going to hold accountable??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We know we can’t do this alone, and by housing these ads for up to seven years, people, regulators, third parties and watchdog groups can hold these groups more accountable," said Facebook Director of Product Management Rob Leathern in a statement.

    How do you hold someone accountable if you don't know who they are? If you buy an add and say I paid for it, am I now accountable for something I know nothing of?

    WTF???

  15. Well duh by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the Ninja Turtles are going to throw in with Mitch McConnell. What I want to know is where does the Shredder stand on today's issues?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shredder seems kind of pro-Trump to me: "None of you are going to Mexico ALIVE!!"

  16. Too Big For Freedom To Survive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is now too big for Democracy & Freedom to survive. Facebook must be destroyed.

  17. Re: Your Close Friends the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They can never be to blame. Its ALL western lies! BIGLY.

  18. I post this ad as Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And /. runs it. Russians!

  19. Thank Justice Kavanaugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He decided is was a-ok for unlimited foreign money to be spent through PACs. Truly the Justice America deserves.

  20. You're too stupid to use Adblock you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me more...

  21. Wouldn't deleting it be easier? Trump, Pelosi &am by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Facebook has a lot of mess, but the *government*? You figure getting Donald Trump, Duncan Hunter, and Nancy Pelosi in control of it will make it better?!

    Maybe Shaun Brown is gonna fix everything? Really?

    Or are you saying it's beyond salvaging, so it should be demolished in a spectacular Mythbusters-style fashion by sending in Claire McCaskill? McCaskill sure can destroy things!

  22. Leave Facebook TODAY. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, it's time to move on -- or just leave 'social media' behind. Facebook is a gigantic, cancerous tumor, and it needs to be allowed to die.

    1. Re:Leave Facebook TODAY. by ssyladin · · Score: 0

      I'd love to leave Facebook. But I'm a member of multiple groups whose only "social" presence is on FB. Like my neighborhood HOA and kids' school. For better or worse, FB is their main mechanism for communicating relevant information to me. Now, for me to quit Facebook, I need to either decide that I don't want to know about these goings on, or convince both the organizers and the bulk of the other members to move to other methods.

    2. Re:Leave Facebook TODAY. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      So you don't have email or a working telephone? You're making excuses based on '(in)convenience', not on 'need', just like most people. I'm sure if you think about it you'll find I'm right. If these 'groups' you mention want you to know information they'll get it to you.

    3. Re:Leave Facebook TODAY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If facebook is needed to stay in touch with some school, that doesn't mean you need to be active on facebook. Your account can be 'dead' in the sense that you never post or like anything at all, you merely stay in touch with that school. And of course, you can browse with images turned off. Makes it much faster, and no ads.

  23. On the Internet.... by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

    On the internet, no one knows you're a dog

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  24. Effect of outsourcing by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    When your ad approval office is outsourced to folks that barely speak English, how are those employees supposed to know that "Cookies for Political Transparency, paid for by Chuck Schumer" is a fake ad?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  25. Schrodinger's Cat, Mexican Style. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the head in the box alive or dead? P.S. Happy Halloween.

  26. Pai = Boob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's anything that needs modernizing, it would be the FCC statutes and rules surrounding political ad disclosures. The language is from 1934. (USC Title 47). The SPRIT and INTENT of the law is to make everything Facebook does ILLEGAL. Of course, since interwebs wasn't envisioned then, ZuckerPIG is laughing his ass off on his way to BANK. WTF? This could have been Pai's first good thing to do for citizens.