7 ms·

This article keeps ridiculously pushing the false narrative that Facebook and "the Russians" are responsible for the outcome of the 2016 election. The amount of

This article keeps ridiculously pushing the false narrative that Facebook and "the Russians" are responsible for the outcome of the 2016 election. The amount of placed advertisments on Facebook from shadowy Russian sources was miniscule and had nothing to do with the massive rallies of people and the media coverage of the Trump campaign. $100,000 of ad buys on Facebook swung the election and caused this horror? It is such a dishonest narrative. I thought it would be a story about the wider cultural effects of social media and Facebook, but it was more partisan conspiracy theories. I'm disapointed in Vanity Fair for running this type of piece.

Analemma_ 9y ago
You’re doing exactly what the cloistered FB articles in the article are doing... just taking it as an assumption that the story is false and that you are under attack. How do you know this? FWIW, I do agree that the wider cultural impact of Facebook is more important than any specific instance of foreign meddling, but that’s not the subject of the article. The article is about the people at Facebook, and if the Russian interference is what they are focusing on, even if they’re wrong, then that is what the article will mention. There are plenty of stories about the social impact of Facebook if that’s the subject matter you want.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  I am not. Facebook released numbers about their political ads and they don't stack up in any way with the kind of narrative Vanity Fair is trying to spin. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russi... $100,000 in Facebook ads versus billions in advertising spending from the DNC and RNC? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/hillary-clinton-breaks-president-obamas-2012-spend/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/hillary-clin... It is a manufactured conspiracy theory.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    Campaign ads paid by a foreign actor are illegal in the United States regardless of how much money exchanged hands. Given the resources available to these state actors, isn’t it possible that the easily tracked $100k spend is the tip of an iceberg?
    - ghostcluster 9y ago
      > Given the resources available to these state actors, isn’t it possible that the easily tracked $100k spend is the tip of an iceberg? No. That would be a conspiracy theory. And beyond the miniscule amount in ad spending, you also have to accept that a small number of political ads on Facebook swung the election in the States that Clinton lost.
      - _jal 9y ago
        How are you so certain that new information won't come out about this? What do you base that on? If there's one constant in the investigations, it is the steady drip of new facts. In fact, it is self-assured reactions like the above that have destroyed a lot of people's credibility on the topic.
        leereeves 9y ago
        Anything might be revealed in the future. Someone might prove that Trump was brainwashed and programmed by Russia, or that Hillary ordered the murder of Seth Rich. That's just speculation. We can only base rational discussion on the information available to us now.
        libertyEQ 9y ago
        Right, and we know the electoral college victory came down to 77,000 votes in 3 states.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- alehul 9y ago
  While I agree with both the GP and your post, it seems worthwhile to note that GP isn't attacking the individuals for their views, even if wrong. He's attacking Vanity Fair's decision that their opinions are newsworthy, especially when they appear to push a strong narrative.
bedhead 9y ago
The right has Obama birth certificate conspiracies, the left has Russian election conspiracies. Different sides of the same stupid coin.
- alehul 9y ago
  True. The difference in scope, however, is critical. One was rather irrelevant, while the other will result in more distant relations with our Cold War rival, serious witch-hunting, and most importantly: further polarization of the U.S. political climate.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - macintux 9y ago
    You don't think the "you don't belong here" undertones (both of Mr. Obama personally and blacks in general) weren't polarizing? "You lie!" was such a telling moment.
    - macintux 9y ago
      And perhaps more pernicious than the disrespect to the man while in office is the way it has tainted everything he did. Obamacare, modeled after a Republican health care reform, must be repealed; the Iran deal must be torn up; hell, they didn't even let him put a Supreme Court Justice on the bench. The GOP basically decided that Kenyan-born interloper was illegitimate and thus everything he did was too.
      - akhilcacharya 9y ago
        And then they elected the guy that made those claims popular again! Remember, birtherism was relegated to the fringe (basically just Orly Taitz) until Trump revived it in 2011 and nearly started beating Romney in the polls. Sure enough, the same thing happened when he called Mexicans and illegal immigrants rapists and murderers. People are fooling themselves if they think a big part of Trumps ascendancy isn’t pure racial animus.
ihsw2 9y ago
The left has needed a scapegoat since election night. It has ranged from: * Bernie Sanders (second pick for Democrat candidate) * James Comey (former FBI Director) * Huma Abedin (deputy chief of staff for Clinton Campaign) * Russian hackers * Vladimir Putin (President of Russia) * Wikileaks (ie: more Russian hackers) * the Benghazi Committee * the "Basket of Deplorables" (ie: white America) * white women (ie: 53% of white women voted for Trump) * white men (ie: universally reviled by progressive supremacists everywhere) It seems the Democratic Party will never recover as it is more fragmented than ever, with ailing Nancy Pelosi and out-of-touch NYC urbanite Chuck Schumer being the only notable Democrats as of late. All they can do is respond with righteous indignation rather than form a coherent party platform, especially given extremists of all flavors left-of-center being unable to form anything beyond a rickety coalition under shredded banner of "Democrat." Self-reflection and soul-searching is totally beyond the left's comprehension. Clinton was just an awful candidate and the shrieking of the liberal media -- from WaPo to CNN to has-been celebrities -- was (and continues to be) tasteless. Whether Clinton's campaign was ever more than "shame on everybody that won't vote for me, also it's a woman's turn now" is irrelevant because that was the only message that got out there. I would love to see a candidate campaign on, specifically, "tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect." The Democratic Party has truly abandoned tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect, and returning to it would go a long way to bridging the ever-widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  The "left" being the centre right Democratic party?
  - sbmassey 9y ago
    Understand "left" as a political marketing strategy rather than a political ideology, and referring to the Democrats as left wing will make sense to you again.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      Wow, I guess both parties do have something in common afterall: they're both political marketing machines and less about political idealogy.
makomk 9y ago
Not only were the amount of ads bought miniscule, Russia simply wouldn't have the ability to target them nearly as well as the Trump campaign could. While there was a conspiracy theory going around on social media that Russia had used hacked copies of the electoral registrations to micro-target voters, it was ridiculous - political campaigns have official access to that data and have to spend huge amounts of volunteer time collecting enough info to do even basic targeting because it simply doesn't exist otherwise. (Which is why a newer conspiracy theory says the Trump campaign gave them the targeting info.)
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Exactly, like most conspiracy theories they will continue to retrofit the narrative to match the evidence, no matter how weak the connection, then they'll just fill in the gaps with imagination. Takes about 10 seconds for any digital marketer to look at the spend and reach and call bs. Unless of course they have some ominous fantasy of this 'only being the tip of the iceberg'
Chathamization 9y ago
I think the focus on "fake news" is in part a deflection from the mainstream media's own poor coverage of the 2016 race. For instance, all of the coverage the week before the election was about how Comey's bombshell letter upended the race - yet in the end, that letter turned out to be nothing. It's a little unsettling to see the media do a terrible job, scream "look over their!", and then try to present themselves as the great defenders of American democracy.
weirdstuff 9y ago
Totally agree; it was too obvious after the upset Trump victory when the Dems immediately started going down the list of scapegoats – especially Russia. I really don't think Russia's influence comes close to domestic influence, especially after looking at the billions spent by the U.S. campaigns. And I've been very disappointed in U.S. mainstream press for repeating these partisan talking points with very little objective analysis. They complain about RT meddling in our election but our own consolidated media has opened the door to all of this IMO.

Analemma_ 9y ago

You’re doing exactly what the cloistered FB articles in the article are doing... just taking it as an assumption that the story is false and that you are under attack. How do you know this? FWIW, I do agree that the wider cultural impact of Facebook is more important than any specific instance of foreign meddling, but that’s not the subject of the article. The article is about the people at Facebook, and if the Russian interference is what they are focusing on, even if they’re wrong, then that is what the article will mention. There are plenty of stories about the social impact of Facebook if that’s the subject matter you want.

ghostcluster 9y ago
I am not. Facebook released numbers about their political ads and they don't stack up in any way with the kind of narrative Vanity Fair is trying to spin. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russi... $100,000 in Facebook ads versus billions in advertising spending from the DNC and RNC? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/hillary-clinton-breaks-president-obamas-2012-spend/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/hillary-clin... It is a manufactured conspiracy theory.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Campaign ads paid by a foreign actor are illegal in the United States regardless of how much money exchanged hands. Given the resources available to these state actors, isn’t it possible that the easily tracked $100k spend is the tip of an iceberg?
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    > Given the resources available to these state actors, isn’t it possible that the easily tracked $100k spend is the tip of an iceberg? No. That would be a conspiracy theory. And beyond the miniscule amount in ad spending, you also have to accept that a small number of political ads on Facebook swung the election in the States that Clinton lost.
    - _jal 9y ago
      How are you so certain that new information won't come out about this? What do you base that on? If there's one constant in the investigations, it is the steady drip of new facts. In fact, it is self-assured reactions like the above that have destroyed a lot of people's credibility on the topic.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        Anything might be revealed in the future. Someone might prove that Trump was brainwashed and programmed by Russia, or that Hillary ordered the murder of Seth Rich. That's just speculation. We can only base rational discussion on the information available to us now.
        libertyEQ 9y ago
        Right, and we know the electoral college victory came down to 77,000 votes in 3 states.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
alehul 9y ago
While I agree with both the GP and your post, it seems worthwhile to note that GP isn't attacking the individuals for their views, even if wrong. He's attacking Vanity Fair's decision that their opinions are newsworthy, especially when they appear to push a strong narrative.

bedhead 9y ago

The right has Obama birth certificate conspiracies, the left has Russian election conspiracies. Different sides of the same stupid coin.

alehul 9y ago
True. The difference in scope, however, is critical. One was rather irrelevant, while the other will result in more distant relations with our Cold War rival, serious witch-hunting, and most importantly: further polarization of the U.S. political climate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- macintux 9y ago
  You don't think the "you don't belong here" undertones (both of Mr. Obama personally and blacks in general) weren't polarizing? "You lie!" was such a telling moment.
  - macintux 9y ago
    And perhaps more pernicious than the disrespect to the man while in office is the way it has tainted everything he did. Obamacare, modeled after a Republican health care reform, must be repealed; the Iran deal must be torn up; hell, they didn't even let him put a Supreme Court Justice on the bench. The GOP basically decided that Kenyan-born interloper was illegitimate and thus everything he did was too.
    - akhilcacharya 9y ago
      And then they elected the guy that made those claims popular again! Remember, birtherism was relegated to the fringe (basically just Orly Taitz) until Trump revived it in 2011 and nearly started beating Romney in the polls. Sure enough, the same thing happened when he called Mexicans and illegal immigrants rapists and murderers. People are fooling themselves if they think a big part of Trumps ascendancy isn’t pure racial animus.

ihsw2 9y ago

The left has needed a scapegoat since election night. It has ranged from: * Bernie Sanders (second pick for Democrat candidate) * James Comey (former FBI Director) * Huma Abedin (deputy chief of staff for Clinton Campaign) * Russian hackers * Vladimir Putin (President of Russia) * Wikileaks (ie: more Russian hackers) * the Benghazi Committee * the "Basket of Deplorables" (ie: white America) * white women (ie: 53% of white women voted for Trump) * white men (ie: universally reviled by progressive supremacists everywhere) It seems the Democratic Party will never recover as it is more fragmented than ever, with ailing Nancy Pelosi and out-of-touch NYC urbanite Chuck Schumer being the only notable Democrats as of late. All they can do is respond with righteous indignation rather than form a coherent party platform, especially given extremists of all flavors left-of-center being unable to form anything beyond a rickety coalition under shredded banner of "Democrat." Self-reflection and soul-searching is totally beyond the left's comprehension. Clinton was just an awful candidate and the shrieking of the liberal media -- from WaPo to CNN to has-been celebrities -- was (and continues to be) tasteless. Whether Clinton's campaign was ever more than "shame on everybody that won't vote for me, also it's a woman's turn now" is irrelevant because that was the only message that got out there. I would love to see a candidate campaign on, specifically, "tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect." The Democratic Party has truly abandoned tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect, and returning to it would go a long way to bridging the ever-widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.

rorykoehler 9y ago
The "left" being the centre right Democratic party?
- sbmassey 9y ago
  Understand "left" as a political marketing strategy rather than a political ideology, and referring to the Democrats as left wing will make sense to you again.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    Wow, I guess both parties do have something in common afterall: they're both political marketing machines and less about political idealogy.

makomk 9y ago

Not only were the amount of ads bought miniscule, Russia simply wouldn't have the ability to target them nearly as well as the Trump campaign could. While there was a conspiracy theory going around on social media that Russia had used hacked copies of the electoral registrations to micro-target voters, it was ridiculous - political campaigns have official access to that data and have to spend huge amounts of volunteer time collecting enough info to do even basic targeting because it simply doesn't exist otherwise. (Which is why a newer conspiracy theory says the Trump campaign gave them the targeting info.)

creaghpatr 9y ago
Exactly, like most conspiracy theories they will continue to retrofit the narrative to match the evidence, no matter how weak the connection, then they'll just fill in the gaps with imagination. Takes about 10 seconds for any digital marketer to look at the spend and reach and call bs. Unless of course they have some ominous fantasy of this 'only being the tip of the iceberg'

Chathamization 9y ago

I think the focus on "fake news" is in part a deflection from the mainstream media's own poor coverage of the 2016 race. For instance, all of the coverage the week before the election was about how Comey's bombshell letter upended the race - yet in the end, that letter turned out to be nothing. It's a little unsettling to see the media do a terrible job, scream "look over their!", and then try to present themselves as the great defenders of American democracy.

weirdstuff 9y ago

Totally agree; it was too obvious after the upset Trump victory when the Dems immediately started going down the list of scapegoats – especially Russia. I really don't think Russia's influence comes close to domestic influence, especially after looking at the billions spent by the U.S. campaigns. And I've been very disappointed in U.S. mainstream press for repeating these partisan talking points with very little objective analysis. They complain about RT meddling in our election but our own consolidated media has opened the door to all of this IMO.