30 ms·

Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

160 points by aaronbrethorst 9y ago

ilyaeck 9y ago
When things go sideways, ain't it tempting to find an enemy to blame...
stevenwoo 9y ago
The update for this article says that $100,000 ad buy may have reached 70,000,000 Americans. http://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-facebook-fake-news-could-have-reached-70-million-americans http://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-facebook-fake-news-coul...
anonu 9y ago
Does anyone have access to the oft-cited FireEye report on this topic? Can't seem to find it...
dymk 9y ago
Facebook's blog post on the matter: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-...
- baybal2 9y ago
  ... and they do this while the were openly taking money from Russian/KGB campaigners round 2010, dispatching campaign consultants and overall trreating them as first tier clients. Same was true of Google in Russia, while they still had hopes of somehow greasing hands with the establishment. They evacuated the most valuable staff out of Russia around 2015 to Switzerland, when they finally gave up. I still do remember them quitely delisting online resources with corruption exposures circa 2007, that were reappearing with simple reversal of word order. They may've been just "probing where the water is shallow" in 2010 with "seemingly innocent" think tank drivel and consulting buys, and then went full throttle when it did matter the most. American top C-Levels, officials, 3 letter agency employees, and other American beau monde all have that "smart, sophisticated, brilliant, but damn naive" note in their personalities. All such types do remind me of people who are "trying to win in a casino," while having "I know what I'm doing" look on their face. They can't win there, it not their league. To prevail, Americans need to overhaul their political establishment and institutes of power with virtuous and competent people. If I was the US congress, I would've put it very square, if a dot com like FB actively conspires with Russians, and then pretends that they didn't, then everybody along the chain of command down to founders, c-levels, and major financiers (with their own respective boards) are detained, subject to criminal prosecution and given prison sentences
manbearpigg 9y ago
Didn't Hillary take some 25 million dollars from the Saudis? I thought this witch hunt was put to rest months ago.
- chasing 9y ago
  Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.
  - manbearpigg 9y ago
    You believe that the Saudis donated 25 million dollars out of the kindness in their hearts, to an American foundation, run by Hilary Clinton, without any implication that the favor be returned?
    - chasing 9y ago
      Hillary Clinton (two "L"s) never ran the Clinton Foundation. She spent two years on the Board. The President of the Clinton Foundation is Donna Shalala. And the person who probably actually leads it is the founder: Bill Clinton.
  - malchow 9y ago
    ...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...
    - rhcom2 9y ago
      93.91/100 from Charity Navigator, spending 86.9% on programs and services.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation "Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).
Ajedi32 9y ago
Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which are meant to prevent this sort of thing? For example, let's assume a foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or systems currently in place which would stop them from doing that?
- vkou 9y ago
  And, as a related question - should there be? What about a foreign corporation? A foreign corporation with a domestic presence? A domestic corporation? None of these groups are beholden to the public interest.
  - pamqzl 9y ago
    Or just a foreign individual? I'm a foreign individual who went around making comments on the US election... what's the difference between me doing it privately and a company doing it?
    - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      As much as America would like to think their laws apply across the globe, they don't actually have jurisdiction over you. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from talking about the campaign. They do have jurisdiction over the candidate and campaign you endorse, though. If you contacted your candidate and offered them money or services in the hope that they could use your help to get elected, and they accepted your offer they would be guilty. You wouldn't be. Unfortunately, it seems like a fairly impotent law if all you have to do as a foreign national with an interest in the election is to support a candidate without their endorsement.
      - pamqzl 9y ago
        But I could, for instance, buy advertisements in support of my favoured candidate? I guess not on US TV or US billboards since they're under the control of the US. But if I buy ads on the internet that just happen to be seen by US citizens there's nothing the US can do about it, right?
lcfcjs2 9y ago
Conservative bots down vote this and anything thought to be liberally biased on any social media site. I made one on Reddit.
pjc50 9y ago
I guess Citizens United doesn't just apply to citizens.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  Citizens United was a good ruling because Congress and both political parties have been doing their damn best to limit the number of ways money can get into politics unless it is to them. How? Simple, donations under $200 per person do not need be revealed until they exceed that number. Also taking foreign donations without proper tracking and the ease of generating new cc numbers / names works as well. However the number one method they use is exploiting campaign fundraising events where they can rake in millions. With the clout and friends in business how can a third party or anyone compete against it? So while there are issues with money in politics all attempts to limit it have simply been done to protect the two parties who hold near absolute power.
sumoboy 9y ago
Why would Facebook discriminate where ad $ revenue is coming from? Twitter, Instagram, doesn't matter, money is money.
- eroo 9y ago
  Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law
  - foota 9y ago
    For the seller of the ad time or for the buyer?
  - spaceflunky 9y ago
    >Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law WRONG. Nothing prohibits foreign entities from buying their own political ads. http://fortune.com/2017/07/12/us-election-meddling-online-ad/ http://fortune.com/2017/07/12/us-election-meddling-online-ad...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - bduerst 9y ago
      You're both right. Sounds like a law that hasn't been updated yet for online ads. >The laws that prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence U.S. elections do not prevent them from lawfully buying some kinds of political ads on Facebook and other online networks
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      While in one sense true, the Fortune article seems to be reading the word “television” (or perhaps “audio or audiovisual content”) into the phrase “cable, broadcast, or satellite” as a distribution mechanism when it is not, in fact, present where that phrase is used in FECA, as amended (FECA does have radio and TV-specific provisions, and they expressly name radio and TV, and they aren't the ones of interest here.) Absent case law to the contrary, which is not cited, it would seem by it's plain language to cover most real electronic media including the internet (advertising on a isolated RFC 1149 network would not be covered, of course, nor would ads in plenty of pre-telegraph “old media” like dead-tree-only newspapers.)
IdontRememberIt 9y ago
I am in Switzerland and I keep seeing suggestions for "Anti trump" groups (None of my friends are part of them). Why?
balance_factor 9y ago
As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in US elections. There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by the US congress, the soi disant National Endowment for Democracy. They have a conference opening next week containing some of the people the US has been using to interfere in Russian elections ( https://www.ned.org/events/prospects-for-russias-democratic-movement https://www.ned.org/events/prospects-for-russias-democratic-... ).
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Evan McMullin, previously the House Republican caucus's chief policy director, had the following to say on this topic: This is a Kremlin talking point. The U.S. doesn't undermine liberal democracies overseas. Any examples otherwise would be from the Cold War. https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/905572789666635777 https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/905572789666635777
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  > virtually never mentioned I (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point. Reminds me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism EDIT: ... And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is doing it isn't the point. It's a deflection technique that works in spite of you calling it out.
  - dunkelheit 9y ago
    I think there is an important difference to whataboutism because what the parent mentions is not merely something similar but a reciprocal action. Say, bringing up alleged violations of human rights in the US in response to mentioning censorship in Russia is whataboutism, but mentioning that not only Russia but both countries try to influence each others elections may signal that two countries are actually having a fair fight (for some definition of fairness) in the information wars as opposed to Russia being the sole aggressor.
Zhenya 9y ago
Can we see what the ads were? Can we see how they were targeted? Am I missing this somewhere?
shostack 9y ago
This is likely just the tip of the digital advertising iceberg with all of this for FB and other advertising giants like Google and Twitter. According to this Wired article[1] Giles-Parscale, the agency behind a lot of the Trump election digital efforts "took in some $90 million, the vast majority of which went toward buying Facebook ads for the campaign." A Reddit user who "was working at the other end of this pipeline that is selling digital adspace to consulting firms" (according to his post) also posted some very detailed insights as to how funds might have been laundered into clean political donations via small agencies and PACs in the US via digital media buys. Here's his follow-up post from three months ago which has more info and links to his original post--really worth reading all of it, his original post, the subsequent threads, etc.: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6alzm0/fbi_confirms_activity_in_annapolis/dhfnm85/?sh=8bd62816&st=J2KZA1Y9 https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6alzm0/fbi_confirm... So the issue is less about ads purchased directly from Russia or by illegitimate companies with Russian IPs or anything of the sort as FB addressed in this statement. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the dollar amounts that might have been spent as part of the rest of the Trump media buys. The bigger story may actually be more about Russian (and other funds) funneled through small legit digital agencies and PACs (or through Parscale) in the US who then did ad buys driving for Trump donations which he was then able to legally use as campaign funds (or for enriching himself as the Reddit user hypothesizes). There are likely FB sales reps and others there who have some insight into the ad campaign objectives, targeting details, and the source of that targeting data. The last bit is interesting there because it is still not fully understood how Cambridge Analytica plugged into all of this, and how they obtained their detailed targeting data. Mercer and Bannon both have direct Cambridge Analytica ties[2]. All of this is to say that I don't think the full story is being unearthed with these data points that FB shared. And I'd be willing to bet that FB sales reps who dealt with these accounts during the election know quite a bit more about what actually went on. However we may never know how deep the rabbit hole really goes, how dirty such funds might actually be, or how much FB, Google and Twitter really profited from the election (and ongoing campaigns). I want to conclude this by stating that I am just posting my own personal thoughts based on a variety of articles and Reddit posts, and I don't purport to have any inside insight into these companies operations beyond my fairly deep experience in the online advertising space and my understanding of how that operates, so this is largely speculation and you should come to your own conclusions. That said, it is hardly outside the realm of possibility at this point to imagine how this sort of scheme could work, and how all of the players involved might have had strong financial incentives to not rock the boat. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/trump-russia-data-parscale-facebook/ https://www.wired.com/story/trump-russia-data-parscale-faceb... [2] http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-target-dem-voters-kushners-help-613612 http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-target-dem-voters-kushn...
chvid 9y ago
In the context of the 2016 election 100.000 usd is a tiny amount.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  In the context of web ads it's not insignificant.
  - spaceflunky 9y ago
    If you can sway a US presidential election from 99% chance of losing, to winning, using only a $100k ad budget. Maybe you deserve to be in power...
    - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
      I certainly agree with this. ~ Gary from Marketing.
    - akhilcacharya 9y ago
      I'd agree with you if this was a domestic actor and not a foreign actor that presumably wishes to do Americans harm.
rocktronica 9y ago
Regardless of legality, it will be interesting to see how this is spun if/when Zuckerberg runs for public office.
Clubber 9y ago
>Most of the ads focused on pumping politically divisive issues such as gun rights and immigration fears, as well as gay rights and racial discrimination. When I read this I thought that this is what the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh. It's all about selling fear and division. There's no longer nuance, no longer presenting both sides of an argument. It's all this is good or this is evil.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > When I read this I thought that this is what the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh WaPo, and even Limbaugh, generally does not invent false flag news stories on both sides of divisive issues purely to drive division. WaPo may perhaps distort coverage to favor one side of divisive issues because of editorial biad or focus on existing divisive voices because conflict draws eyeballs, and Limbaugh may generate outright invented propaganda on a particular side of divisive issues to favor a preferred outcome, but neither of those behaviors are at issue, and even if it was the same behavior, neither actor is an outside interloper.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    They do it for profit though. I don't see the motive as particularly relevant, the result is the same, division and fear. Limbaugh certainly does. He said Sandra Fluke was a prostitute. I'm sure he's said many other things. WaPo and NYT are a little better, but their writers have gone a little bonkers over Trump hurting their credibility. I'm sure there are some Limbaugh like news sites on the left. There have to be, riling people up is very profitable. What about the DNC pushing Sanders off the ticket story? I mean take as step back and analyze all this stuff the press puts out. It's pretty divisive. I'd really like to see a side by side comparison between Russian planted ads and comments and domestic ads and comments. Do you think we could tell the difference?
ThomPete 9y ago
"Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian “troll farm” with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said." Excuse my ignorance but isn't $100K chicken feed?
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Cheapo chicken feed. Trump's campaign raised 2,600 times that amount. Trump himself outspent these Ruskis 660x from his own pocket. If this amount turned the election, everyone should fire their campaign staff and hire these guys.
- jonknee 9y ago
  That’s what Facebook self reported that it discovered, not necessarily the whole operation. It’s also direct evidence of non-hacking related attempts to influence the election. Furthermore, considering there is a criminal investigation going on over whether or not the Trump campaigned colluded with Russia on such activities, the dollar amount is pretty meaningless.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    It's what FB reported unless you have reason to suggest otherwise the $100K is quite relevant.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    > criminal investigation going on over whether or not the Trump campaigned colluded with Russia It is technically a criminal investigation, though colluding with Russia would not be a crime.
meri_dian 9y ago
I implore everyone alarmed by recent Russian assaults on Western Democratic institutions to get their hands on an English translation of 'The Foundations of Geopolitics' by Aleksandr Dugin. Dugin is a Russian academic and the book is essentially a textbook on how Russia should seek to subvert and destabilize Europe, the US and other Russian rivals in order to forge a new empire for the explicit purpose of ethnic Russian domination of the world. Dugin is not some fringe academic and the book is well known among the elite of the Russian state. According to the Wiki page: >"The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military." More on the book's approach towards destabilizing America: >"Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics." We must unite in the face of division, both for the sake of unity and because the Russians are actively trying to divide us. I haven't been able to find a copy of the English translation online. I was only able to get my hands on one because of a connection that works in DC. If anyone knows where to get one online please post a link. Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics?wpr...
- klenwell 9y ago
  This New Yorker article from March provides a lot of background on Russia's "Hybrid War" strategy and its motivations: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-an... Reading that article left me pretty slack-jawed. It cites a 2013 article, "The Value of Science in Prediction", by Chief of General Staff of Russian Federated Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov as a canonical text behind the Russian election interference campaign. After reading the New Yorker article, I tracked down a translation of that text here: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20160228_art008.pdf http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/... Strange to think that the Arab Spring helped function as a trigger for white nationalist marches in this country.
revelation 9y ago
If we just keep pointing at the Russian bogeyman, no one will care that individuals like Peter Thiel or companies spent 100 to 1000 times that amount of money on superpacs and eventually political ads for their favorite candidate.
grumblestumble 9y ago
Too bad, I was looking forward to the abominable shitshow that was going to be Zuck's candidacy.

When things go sideways, ain't it tempting to find an enemy to blame...

The update for this article says that $100,000 ad buy may have reached 70,000,000 Americans. http://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-facebook-fake-news-could-have-reached-70-million-americans http://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-facebook-fake-news-coul...

anonu 9y ago

Does anyone have access to the oft-cited FireEye report on this topic? Can't seem to find it...

dymk 9y ago

Facebook's blog post on the matter: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-...

baybal2 9y ago
... and they do this while the were openly taking money from Russian/KGB campaigners round 2010, dispatching campaign consultants and overall trreating them as first tier clients. Same was true of Google in Russia, while they still had hopes of somehow greasing hands with the establishment. They evacuated the most valuable staff out of Russia around 2015 to Switzerland, when they finally gave up. I still do remember them quitely delisting online resources with corruption exposures circa 2007, that were reappearing with simple reversal of word order. They may've been just "probing where the water is shallow" in 2010 with "seemingly innocent" think tank drivel and consulting buys, and then went full throttle when it did matter the most. American top C-Levels, officials, 3 letter agency employees, and other American beau monde all have that "smart, sophisticated, brilliant, but damn naive" note in their personalities. All such types do remind me of people who are "trying to win in a casino," while having "I know what I'm doing" look on their face. They can't win there, it not their league. To prevail, Americans need to overhaul their political establishment and institutes of power with virtuous and competent people. If I was the US congress, I would've put it very square, if a dot com like FB actively conspires with Russians, and then pretends that they didn't, then everybody along the chain of command down to founders, c-levels, and major financiers (with their own respective boards) are detained, subject to criminal prosecution and given prison sentences

manbearpigg 9y ago

Didn't Hillary take some 25 million dollars from the Saudis? I thought this witch hunt was put to rest months ago.

chasing 9y ago
Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.
- manbearpigg 9y ago
  You believe that the Saudis donated 25 million dollars out of the kindness in their hearts, to an American foundation, run by Hilary Clinton, without any implication that the favor be returned?
  - chasing 9y ago
    Hillary Clinton (two "L"s) never ran the Clinton Foundation. She spent two years on the Board. The President of the Clinton Foundation is Donna Shalala. And the person who probably actually leads it is the founder: Bill Clinton.
- malchow 9y ago
  ...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    93.91/100 from Charity Navigator, spending 86.9% on programs and services.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation "Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).

Ajedi32 9y ago

Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which are meant to prevent this sort of thing? For example, let's assume a foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or systems currently in place which would stop them from doing that?

vkou 9y ago
And, as a related question - should there be? What about a foreign corporation? A foreign corporation with a domestic presence? A domestic corporation? None of these groups are beholden to the public interest.
- pamqzl 9y ago
  Or just a foreign individual? I'm a foreign individual who went around making comments on the US election... what's the difference between me doing it privately and a company doing it?
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    As much as America would like to think their laws apply across the globe, they don't actually have jurisdiction over you. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from talking about the campaign. They do have jurisdiction over the candidate and campaign you endorse, though. If you contacted your candidate and offered them money or services in the hope that they could use your help to get elected, and they accepted your offer they would be guilty. You wouldn't be. Unfortunately, it seems like a fairly impotent law if all you have to do as a foreign national with an interest in the election is to support a candidate without their endorsement.
    - pamqzl 9y ago
      But I could, for instance, buy advertisements in support of my favoured candidate? I guess not on US TV or US billboards since they're under the control of the US. But if I buy ads on the internet that just happen to be seen by US citizens there's nothing the US can do about it, right?

lcfcjs2 9y ago

Conservative bots down vote this and anything thought to be liberally biased on any social media site. I made one on Reddit.

pjc50 9y ago

I guess Citizens United doesn't just apply to citizens.

Shivetya 9y ago
Citizens United was a good ruling because Congress and both political parties have been doing their damn best to limit the number of ways money can get into politics unless it is to them. How? Simple, donations under $200 per person do not need be revealed until they exceed that number. Also taking foreign donations without proper tracking and the ease of generating new cc numbers / names works as well. However the number one method they use is exploiting campaign fundraising events where they can rake in millions. With the clout and friends in business how can a third party or anyone compete against it? So while there are issues with money in politics all attempts to limit it have simply been done to protect the two parties who hold near absolute power.

sumoboy 9y ago

Why would Facebook discriminate where ad $ revenue is coming from? Twitter, Instagram, doesn't matter, money is money.

eroo 9y ago
Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law
- foota 9y ago
  For the seller of the ad time or for the buyer?
- spaceflunky 9y ago
  >Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law WRONG. Nothing prohibits foreign entities from buying their own political ads. http://fortune.com/2017/07/12/us-election-meddling-online-ad/ http://fortune.com/2017/07/12/us-election-meddling-online-ad...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bduerst 9y ago
    You're both right. Sounds like a law that hasn't been updated yet for online ads. >The laws that prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence U.S. elections do not prevent them from lawfully buying some kinds of political ads on Facebook and other online networks
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    While in one sense true, the Fortune article seems to be reading the word “television” (or perhaps “audio or audiovisual content”) into the phrase “cable, broadcast, or satellite” as a distribution mechanism when it is not, in fact, present where that phrase is used in FECA, as amended (FECA does have radio and TV-specific provisions, and they expressly name radio and TV, and they aren't the ones of interest here.) Absent case law to the contrary, which is not cited, it would seem by it's plain language to cover most real electronic media including the internet (advertising on a isolated RFC 1149 network would not be covered, of course, nor would ads in plenty of pre-telegraph “old media” like dead-tree-only newspapers.)

IdontRememberIt 9y ago

I am in Switzerland and I keep seeing suggestions for "Anti trump" groups (None of my friends are part of them). Why?

balance_factor 9y ago

As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in US elections. There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by the US congress, the soi disant National Endowment for Democracy. They have a conference opening next week containing some of the people the US has been using to interfere in Russian elections ( https://www.ned.org/events/prospects-for-russias-democratic-movement https://www.ned.org/events/prospects-for-russias-democratic-... ).

aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Evan McMullin, previously the House Republican caucus's chief policy director, had the following to say on this topic: This is a Kremlin talking point. The U.S. doesn't undermine liberal democracies overseas. Any examples otherwise would be from the Cold War. https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/905572789666635777 https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/905572789666635777
spaceseaman 9y ago
> virtually never mentioned I (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point. Reminds me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism EDIT: ... And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is doing it isn't the point. It's a deflection technique that works in spite of you calling it out.
- dunkelheit 9y ago
  I think there is an important difference to whataboutism because what the parent mentions is not merely something similar but a reciprocal action. Say, bringing up alleged violations of human rights in the US in response to mentioning censorship in Russia is whataboutism, but mentioning that not only Russia but both countries try to influence each others elections may signal that two countries are actually having a fair fight (for some definition of fairness) in the information wars as opposed to Russia being the sole aggressor.

Zhenya 9y ago

Can we see what the ads were? Can we see how they were targeted? Am I missing this somewhere?

shostack 9y ago

This is likely just the tip of the digital advertising iceberg with all of this for FB and other advertising giants like Google and Twitter. According to this Wired article[1] Giles-Parscale, the agency behind a lot of the Trump election digital efforts "took in some $90 million, the vast majority of which went toward buying Facebook ads for the campaign." A Reddit user who "was working at the other end of this pipeline that is selling digital adspace to consulting firms" (according to his post) also posted some very detailed insights as to how funds might have been laundered into clean political donations via small agencies and PACs in the US via digital media buys. Here's his follow-up post from three months ago which has more info and links to his original post--really worth reading all of it, his original post, the subsequent threads, etc.: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6alzm0/fbi_confirms_activity_in_annapolis/dhfnm85/?sh=8bd62816&st=J2KZA1Y9 https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6alzm0/fbi_confirm... So the issue is less about ads purchased directly from Russia or by illegitimate companies with Russian IPs or anything of the sort as FB addressed in this statement. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the dollar amounts that might have been spent as part of the rest of the Trump media buys. The bigger story may actually be more about Russian (and other funds) funneled through small legit digital agencies and PACs (or through Parscale) in the US who then did ad buys driving for Trump donations which he was then able to legally use as campaign funds (or for enriching himself as the Reddit user hypothesizes). There are likely FB sales reps and others there who have some insight into the ad campaign objectives, targeting details, and the source of that targeting data. The last bit is interesting there because it is still not fully understood how Cambridge Analytica plugged into all of this, and how they obtained their detailed targeting data. Mercer and Bannon both have direct Cambridge Analytica ties[2]. All of this is to say that I don't think the full story is being unearthed with these data points that FB shared. And I'd be willing to bet that FB sales reps who dealt with these accounts during the election know quite a bit more about what actually went on. However we may never know how deep the rabbit hole really goes, how dirty such funds might actually be, or how much FB, Google and Twitter really profited from the election (and ongoing campaigns). I want to conclude this by stating that I am just posting my own personal thoughts based on a variety of articles and Reddit posts, and I don't purport to have any inside insight into these companies operations beyond my fairly deep experience in the online advertising space and my understanding of how that operates, so this is largely speculation and you should come to your own conclusions. That said, it is hardly outside the realm of possibility at this point to imagine how this sort of scheme could work, and how all of the players involved might have had strong financial incentives to not rock the boat. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/trump-russia-data-parscale-facebook/ https://www.wired.com/story/trump-russia-data-parscale-faceb... [2] http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-target-dem-voters-kushners-help-613612 http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-target-dem-voters-kushn...

chvid 9y ago

In the context of the 2016 election 100.000 usd is a tiny amount.

akhilcacharya 9y ago
In the context of web ads it's not insignificant.
- spaceflunky 9y ago
  If you can sway a US presidential election from 99% chance of losing, to winning, using only a $100k ad budget. Maybe you deserve to be in power...
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    I certainly agree with this. ~ Gary from Marketing.
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    I'd agree with you if this was a domestic actor and not a foreign actor that presumably wishes to do Americans harm.

rocktronica 9y ago

Regardless of legality, it will be interesting to see how this is spun if/when Zuckerberg runs for public office.

Clubber 9y ago

>Most of the ads focused on pumping politically divisive issues such as gun rights and immigration fears, as well as gay rights and racial discrimination. When I read this I thought that this is what the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh. It's all about selling fear and division. There's no longer nuance, no longer presenting both sides of an argument. It's all this is good or this is evil.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> When I read this I thought that this is what the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh WaPo, and even Limbaugh, generally does not invent false flag news stories on both sides of divisive issues purely to drive division. WaPo may perhaps distort coverage to favor one side of divisive issues because of editorial biad or focus on existing divisive voices because conflict draws eyeballs, and Limbaugh may generate outright invented propaganda on a particular side of divisive issues to favor a preferred outcome, but neither of those behaviors are at issue, and even if it was the same behavior, neither actor is an outside interloper.
- Clubber 9y ago
  They do it for profit though. I don't see the motive as particularly relevant, the result is the same, division and fear. Limbaugh certainly does. He said Sandra Fluke was a prostitute. I'm sure he's said many other things. WaPo and NYT are a little better, but their writers have gone a little bonkers over Trump hurting their credibility. I'm sure there are some Limbaugh like news sites on the left. There have to be, riling people up is very profitable. What about the DNC pushing Sanders off the ticket story? I mean take as step back and analyze all this stuff the press puts out. It's pretty divisive. I'd really like to see a side by side comparison between Russian planted ads and comments and domestic ads and comments. Do you think we could tell the difference?

ThomPete 9y ago

"Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian “troll farm” with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said." Excuse my ignorance but isn't $100K chicken feed?

paulddraper 9y ago
Cheapo chicken feed. Trump's campaign raised 2,600 times that amount. Trump himself outspent these Ruskis 660x from his own pocket. If this amount turned the election, everyone should fire their campaign staff and hire these guys.
jonknee 9y ago
That’s what Facebook self reported that it discovered, not necessarily the whole operation. It’s also direct evidence of non-hacking related attempts to influence the election. Furthermore, considering there is a criminal investigation going on over whether or not the Trump campaigned colluded with Russia on such activities, the dollar amount is pretty meaningless.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  It's what FB reported unless you have reason to suggest otherwise the $100K is quite relevant.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  > criminal investigation going on over whether or not the Trump campaigned colluded with Russia It is technically a criminal investigation, though colluding with Russia would not be a crime.

meri_dian 9y ago

I implore everyone alarmed by recent Russian assaults on Western Democratic institutions to get their hands on an English translation of 'The Foundations of Geopolitics' by Aleksandr Dugin. Dugin is a Russian academic and the book is essentially a textbook on how Russia should seek to subvert and destabilize Europe, the US and other Russian rivals in order to forge a new empire for the explicit purpose of ethnic Russian domination of the world. Dugin is not some fringe academic and the book is well known among the elite of the Russian state. According to the Wiki page: >"The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military." More on the book's approach towards destabilizing America: >"Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics." We must unite in the face of division, both for the sake of unity and because the Russians are actively trying to divide us. I haven't been able to find a copy of the English translation online. I was only able to get my hands on one because of a connection that works in DC. If anyone knows where to get one online please post a link. Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics?wpr...

klenwell 9y ago
This New Yorker article from March provides a lot of background on Russia's "Hybrid War" strategy and its motivations: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-an... Reading that article left me pretty slack-jawed. It cites a 2013 article, "The Value of Science in Prediction", by Chief of General Staff of Russian Federated Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov as a canonical text behind the Russian election interference campaign. After reading the New Yorker article, I tracked down a translation of that text here: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20160228_art008.pdf http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/... Strange to think that the Arab Spring helped function as a trigger for white nationalist marches in this country.

revelation 9y ago

If we just keep pointing at the Russian bogeyman, no one will care that individuals like Peter Thiel or companies spent 100 to 1000 times that amount of money on superpacs and eventually political ads for their favorite candidate.

grumblestumble 9y ago

Too bad, I was looking forward to the abominable shitshow that was going to be Zuck's candidacy.