5 ms·

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

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]
        leereeves 9y ago
        And the two parties spent $2.5 billion on an election in which about 125 million votes were cast. $20 per vote. At that rate, even if the Russians ads we're discussing had all been targeted at the Presidential election in those 3 states (far from true), that only equals about 5,000 votes. Further assuming that 2/3's of votes aren't changeable and the $2.5 billion was spent to influence the remaining third, we're talking about 1500 votes influenced.
        _jal 9y ago
        If we're smuggling in finance terms, I'd call it closer to investment than speculation. There is a near-certainty Mueller's team isn't noodling over nothing, and the targets of their investigation are acting in ways that are consistent with there being some there there. And that's only one investigation. And I brought up credibility because one important facet that seems to be serially forgotten is that the major targets of the investigations have already destroyed their credibility, as have many commentators. I would encourage some googling to look at the past claims people make - more often than not you're hearing assertions of tribal fidelity rather than arguments based on factual exploration, and one bit of that information available to us now is a fair amount of background on motivations. > We can only base rational discussion on the information available to us now. This is false. We are planning animals. We do what-if projections constantly. In fact, we can't not do it - you did it yourself to make an implicit argument above attempting to make any forward-looking seem silly.
- fenk85 9y ago
  > Facebook released numbers There is a problem right there, if there was state funded/directed interference in US elections then Facebook have every incentive to downplay and hide this.
- malloreon 9y ago
  How many times in the last 2-3 years has facebook claimed there was no problem with something, and then later changed their story? Off the top of my head I can think of at least two instances where they blatantly miscounted the amount they charged advertisers for paid traffic they never sent, and that's without even getting into zuck's wild claims that fb had zero effect on the 2016 election, and then months later admitting that was completely wrong. There is very little reason to trust 'facebook releasing numbers' on this issue. They have EVERY reason to obfuscate, stall, and misreport on it - they are complicit in an extremely serious federal crime.
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.

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]
        leereeves 9y ago
        And the two parties spent $2.5 billion on an election in which about 125 million votes were cast. $20 per vote. At that rate, even if the Russians ads we're discussing had all been targeted at the Presidential election in those 3 states (far from true), that only equals about 5,000 votes. Further assuming that 2/3's of votes aren't changeable and the $2.5 billion was spent to influence the remaining third, we're talking about 1500 votes influenced.
      - _jal 9y ago
        If we're smuggling in finance terms, I'd call it closer to investment than speculation. There is a near-certainty Mueller's team isn't noodling over nothing, and the targets of their investigation are acting in ways that are consistent with there being some there there. And that's only one investigation. And I brought up credibility because one important facet that seems to be serially forgotten is that the major targets of the investigations have already destroyed their credibility, as have many commentators. I would encourage some googling to look at the past claims people make - more often than not you're hearing assertions of tribal fidelity rather than arguments based on factual exploration, and one bit of that information available to us now is a fair amount of background on motivations. > We can only base rational discussion on the information available to us now. This is false. We are planning animals. We do what-if projections constantly. In fact, we can't not do it - you did it yourself to make an implicit argument above attempting to make any forward-looking seem silly.
fenk85 9y ago
> Facebook released numbers There is a problem right there, if there was state funded/directed interference in US elections then Facebook have every incentive to downplay and hide this.
malloreon 9y ago
How many times in the last 2-3 years has facebook claimed there was no problem with something, and then later changed their story? Off the top of my head I can think of at least two instances where they blatantly miscounted the amount they charged advertisers for paid traffic they never sent, and that's without even getting into zuck's wild claims that fb had zero effect on the 2016 election, and then months later admitting that was completely wrong. There is very little reason to trust 'facebook releasing numbers' on this issue. They have EVERY reason to obfuscate, stall, and misreport on it - they are complicit in an extremely serious federal crime.

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.