4 ms·

> 56% of total ad impressions were after the election. > Most of the ads appear to focus on divisive social and political messages across the ideological spect

> 56% of total ad impressions were after the election. > Most of the ads appear to focus on divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum, touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights. > Many of the ads and posts we’ve seen so far are deeply disturbing—seemingly intended to amplify societal divisions and pit groups of people against each other. "Deeply disturbing". The contrived pearl-clutching really is something else. Disturbing for whom, exactly? One ad apparently talked about saying Merry Christmas again. This is the 'meddling' they speak of. And this is what the media does 24/7. Every day they shove divisive social and political messages down our throats. What is the crime here?

rrhd 9y ago
You don't see the Russians attempting to influence the US elections via social engineering as a problem?
- wslh 9y ago
  That is a naive thinking. If US has a defense system against nuclear weapons but you can attack it via social media the error is on the US side. US is not an exception and had also attacked a lot of countries before via different strategies.
  - rrhd 9y ago
    Uh okay, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't examine this and respond as necessary.
    - wslh 9y ago
      Sure, I am just saying that it is "funny" that a superpower is attacked via social media in a naive way. This attack could be organized by any other entity with enough cash. It sounds like an easy hack.
- factsaresacred 9y ago
  Not any more than I saw Obama's threat to put Brits to the back of the queue in trade if they voted for Brexit. Paying to promote ads is a pretty common thing. It's as problematic as any other ads that are designed to influence you - so pretty much all of them.
  - AlexandrB 9y ago
    > Paying to promote ads is a pretty common thing. It's as problematic as any other ads that are designed to influence you - so pretty much all of them. Right. The real problem is we've allowed ad companies to mediate not only commercial spaces but now also personal interactions. So propaganda shows up not only in public spaces but also in seemingly private ones like a Facebook wall where it's hard to track and near impossible to counter.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  No more than entrenched political parties (Republicans and Democrats) doing so. The American electorate is gullible, and that’s a hard pill to swallow for most; easier to yell “Russia!” “Collusion!”
arel 9y ago
> divisive social and political messages If the actor is a foreign government and the intent is to destabilize a country thats ok with you?
- xienze 9y ago
  And yet, when these very same messages are repeated by our own media, celebrities, and universities (white people are bad, don’t stand for the National Anthem, etc.), it’s somehow... a good thing?
bllguo 9y ago
Even if your false equivalence were true, maybe both are bad? It's funny because this whataboutism is exactly the kind of thinking that Russian bots are accused of spreading.
- factsaresacred 9y ago
  > It's funny because this whataboutism is exactly the kind of thinking that Russian bots are accused of spreading. "exactly the kind of thinking" - critical thinking, it's called. It's in low supply lately. 'whataboutism' is a valid argument given the assertions that this is unique event, a bridge too far. When, in fact, the US have been doing it for years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13...
  - ak4g 9y ago
    That was then. Try and find a post-Cold-War instance of the US deciding to usurp free and fair elections for our own economic or security purposes. We weren't doing it for the fun of it, and in a unipolar world order, we don't do it at all.
    - sjeohp 9y ago
      ..... wow you're adorable. Try the past two decades of Venezuelan politics just for an appetizer.
  - outlace 9y ago
    I think the point is if we as a society shoot our selves in the foot, that’s one thing, but it’s another if we let someone else do it. And the argument that we do it to others is irrelevant. If country X hacks our companies to steal trade secrets, does that mean we shouldn’t try to stop it just because we might be doing the same to others? That’s just laying down on the tracks.
softrock 9y ago
I don't think anyone is implying that the ads themselves constitute a crime. The issue is that a foreign power attempted to manipulate the public in a certain direction. Your assertion that "the media" intentionally tries and turns groups against one another is pretty sweeping. Certainly certain advocacy groups attempt to paint their opponents in a bad or even dishonest light, but this is far different than a foreign government trying to manipulate Americans.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lubesGordi 9y ago
What's the difference between censoring 'fake news' and making it illegal? The disinformation issue is deep, and people want to just call some things disinformation and other things truth. It's intellectual laziness. You're not going to get to truth by blindly believing trusted sources. You need to do your own research. And what, you're going to let the CIA decide what is a trusted source? The route this is going is incredibly scary. At the very least people's attitudes should be 'I'll make up my own damn mind, thank you very much!'
- rhcom2 9y ago
  People are now blindly believing any source if it backs up their opinion. You're not going to be able to get primary sources on everything so at some point you will HAVE to trust some source.
  - lubesGordi 9y ago
    Well, I call it remaining agnostic. If you can't get a primary source on something political in nature (especially political), then you can't draw conclusions or argue about it.

rrhd 9y ago

You don't see the Russians attempting to influence the US elections via social engineering as a problem?

wslh 9y ago
That is a naive thinking. If US has a defense system against nuclear weapons but you can attack it via social media the error is on the US side. US is not an exception and had also attacked a lot of countries before via different strategies.
- rrhd 9y ago
  Uh okay, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't examine this and respond as necessary.
  - wslh 9y ago
    Sure, I am just saying that it is "funny" that a superpower is attacked via social media in a naive way. This attack could be organized by any other entity with enough cash. It sounds like an easy hack.
factsaresacred 9y ago
Not any more than I saw Obama's threat to put Brits to the back of the queue in trade if they voted for Brexit. Paying to promote ads is a pretty common thing. It's as problematic as any other ads that are designed to influence you - so pretty much all of them.
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  > Paying to promote ads is a pretty common thing. It's as problematic as any other ads that are designed to influence you - so pretty much all of them. Right. The real problem is we've allowed ad companies to mediate not only commercial spaces but now also personal interactions. So propaganda shows up not only in public spaces but also in seemingly private ones like a Facebook wall where it's hard to track and near impossible to counter.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
No more than entrenched political parties (Republicans and Democrats) doing so. The American electorate is gullible, and that’s a hard pill to swallow for most; easier to yell “Russia!” “Collusion!”

arel 9y ago

> divisive social and political messages If the actor is a foreign government and the intent is to destabilize a country thats ok with you?

xienze 9y ago
And yet, when these very same messages are repeated by our own media, celebrities, and universities (white people are bad, don’t stand for the National Anthem, etc.), it’s somehow... a good thing?

bllguo 9y ago

Even if your false equivalence were true, maybe both are bad? It's funny because this whataboutism is exactly the kind of thinking that Russian bots are accused of spreading.

factsaresacred 9y ago
> It's funny because this whataboutism is exactly the kind of thinking that Russian bots are accused of spreading. "exactly the kind of thinking" - critical thinking, it's called. It's in low supply lately. 'whataboutism' is a valid argument given the assertions that this is unique event, a bridge too far. When, in fact, the US have been doing it for years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13...
- ak4g 9y ago
  That was then. Try and find a post-Cold-War instance of the US deciding to usurp free and fair elections for our own economic or security purposes. We weren't doing it for the fun of it, and in a unipolar world order, we don't do it at all.
  - sjeohp 9y ago
    ..... wow you're adorable. Try the past two decades of Venezuelan politics just for an appetizer.
- outlace 9y ago
  I think the point is if we as a society shoot our selves in the foot, that’s one thing, but it’s another if we let someone else do it. And the argument that we do it to others is irrelevant. If country X hacks our companies to steal trade secrets, does that mean we shouldn’t try to stop it just because we might be doing the same to others? That’s just laying down on the tracks.

softrock 9y ago

I don't think anyone is implying that the ads themselves constitute a crime. The issue is that a foreign power attempted to manipulate the public in a certain direction. Your assertion that "the media" intentionally tries and turns groups against one another is pretty sweeping. Certainly certain advocacy groups attempt to paint their opponents in a bad or even dishonest light, but this is far different than a foreign government trying to manipulate Americans.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

lubesGordi 9y ago

What's the difference between censoring 'fake news' and making it illegal? The disinformation issue is deep, and people want to just call some things disinformation and other things truth. It's intellectual laziness. You're not going to get to truth by blindly believing trusted sources. You need to do your own research. And what, you're going to let the CIA decide what is a trusted source? The route this is going is incredibly scary. At the very least people's attitudes should be 'I'll make up my own damn mind, thank you very much!'

rhcom2 9y ago
People are now blindly believing any source if it backs up their opinion. You're not going to be able to get primary sources on everything so at some point you will HAVE to trust some source.
- lubesGordi 9y ago
  Well, I call it remaining agnostic. If you can't get a primary source on something political in nature (especially political), then you can't draw conclusions or argue about it.