5 ms·

On Russia, Facebook Sends a Message It Wishes It Hadn’t

42 points by uptown 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mtgx 9y ago
> He continued: “The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.” Not a fan of Facebook, but that I can believe.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  This seems like a very relevant piece of information. Why should anyone wish he didn’t say this if it is true? This seems to indicate that the election wasn’t compromised to the degree we thought.
  - loorinm 9y ago
    See my comment above.
  - jbigelow76 9y ago
    In the article the reporter indicates that Mueller's investigation states that advertising wasn't the most damaging part of Russia's FB efforts but rather posts shared through users walls.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      It seems much more problematic for a platform to control personal posts than to control abuse of advertising and promotion mechanisms. The narrative of NYT and much of the media has been that Russia manipulated the pre election by abusing advertising and promotion mechanisms, and debunking that seemingly false narrative is the point of his post. Am I missing something?
  - learc83 9y ago
    Or it indicates that after better than expected results the Russian government drastically increased the budget for Facebook ads. There is no conspiracy to keep this information hidden, it's just a story that can be framed 2 ways. "Russia spent the majority of money on Facebook ads after the election." "Russia spent money on social media to influence the election. Then after analyzing the performance of their ad buys, they decided to ramp up spending on Facebook ads."
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      I would agree with you if the conversation topic wasn’t specifically how Russia meddled with the pre election result. People discredit the vote of half of the US people in the belief they were partially fooled by Russia, and if that is not true then discrediting their voice in such a way makes it hard for us to listen to each other’s different values and problems through discourse.
      - learc83 9y ago
        None of what you're saying is a logical argument against any part of my comment. I showed how this comment "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." doesn't say anything about the extent Russia was interfering before the election. The only thing that statement supports is that they were interfering even more after the election. You never refuted that. >People discredit the vote of half of the US people in the belief they were partially fooled by Russia, and if that is not true Again a completely invalid counter argument. I said that it likely is true. A valid counterargument would involve "no it's not true because...", not "if it's not true then I'm right".
        asabjorn 9y ago
        I think you are missing the point of my comment; the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling, and this indicated that core parts of the evidence need closer scrutiny and that the case is not as straightforward as NYT etal has claimed. I am saying this as a libertarian that was upset about the election result. I personally thought something smelled fishy earlier given how the evidence was presented and believed what I read in NYT etal.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - panarky 9y ago
    Because it's misdirection to focus on the timing of ad spend, when the bulk of the Russian influence operation was organic social not paid ads. The one entity in all of this who knows whether Russia's disinformation campaign is working is Russia itself. So if Russia is investing even more in spreading disinformation on Facebook after the election, isn't that pretty good evidence that their campaigns are working?
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      I am not sure I understand. How does someone using a different mechanism to spread disinformation post election indicate success of their pre election mechanisms for spreading disinformation? Both are problems and need fixing, but only pre election disinformation is relevant to the election result.
  - makomk 9y ago
    Seems pretty clear why to me: "Mr. Goldman eventually walked back some of his statements, but it was too late. Mr. Goldman had just given Mr. Trump something that looked like a Facebook-stamped exoneration." The new standard of honest reporting has less to do with whether something is true or not, and is more about whether it fits into the correct anti-Trump narrative. (I even saw one of their well-known writers openly complaining on their popular verified Twitter account about the NYT veering from the narrative a few weeks back.) What's particularly interesting about this case is that the dangerous, divergent narrative which must not be spoken used to be the standard understanding of what Russian propaganda does: it stokes existing internal problems. Of course, the Times in particular has apparently always seen its role as pushing a narrative; I seem to recall at least one one piece by an ex-NYT employee talking about this made it to HN before.
  - imhelpingu 9y ago
    > we
- loorinm 9y ago
  This detail exonerates no one. After successfully subverting our election, Russia has continued their effort toward the 2018 mid-terms. It’s working so why stop?
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  I wish I could find it now, but by "majority" he means 56%. Yes true, but not exactly as narrative changing as the quote seems at first.
  - learc83 9y ago
    Here is a NYT article from back in October with exactly those numbers. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russia-ads-.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=666985C372F0C6D871A2780CEB772880&gwt=pay https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russi...
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  The article specifically points out the main thrust of the Russian operation uncovered so far was influencing voters through posts by individuals and pages, not by ads.
vthallam 9y ago
He indirectly said the media is running a biased campaign. Even if he personally means so, alienating all mainstream media who is already mad about facebook for various reasons at best could be termed as not clever. Also, there's a ongoing investigation and some indictments which say Russia ran a campaign, commenting about that, I don't know what he was thinking. I am thinking this will only add more focus to "FB as a tool to influence elections" narrative.
mzs 9y ago
also NYT, basically saying Rob Goldman's (ads VP) tweets defending FB were bupkis https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/facebook-executive-russia-tweets-fact-check.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/facebook-execu...
- makomk 9y ago
  Marcy Wheeler, who's been doing a lot of good writing on Trump, Russia and Mueller lately, wrote a rather scathing - and in my view fairly convincing - article criticising this claimed fact check: https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/19/in-two-so-called-fact-checks-of-facebook-nyt-forgets-everything-it-knows-about-indictments/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/19/in-two-so-called-fact-... (Not that it matters. The New York Times can convince the world that black is white and white is black, and everyone will believe them. Won't be the first time.)
nostromo 9y ago
"Facebook accidentally tells the truth, even though it's not helpful for Facebook politically. Facebook regrets the error."
- loorinm 9y ago
  Did you even read the article? The tweets are egregiously misleading and bring absolutely zero to facebook’s case for playing the victim.
  - nostromo 9y ago
    From the article: > Some of Mr. Goldman’s claims may have been narrowly true, but they were a prime example of misdirection > Why should it reassure us that most of Russia’s Facebook advertising was purchased after the election, rather than telling us that Facebook continued to drop the ball even after it knew it had a Russia problem? The Times is admitting the tweets weren't wrong. The Times is criticizing Facebook's actions because they disrupted their preferred narrative of the election.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    I haven’t read anything that would lead me to believe the tweets are misleading in the slightest. The clumsy NYT “Fact Check” least of all. In November CNN reported the IRA spent $100,000 on promoting content of FB. That’s compared to $81 million spent by the campaigns. Anyone who has actually used FB as an ad platform knows exactly how relevant the IRA was to Trump winning the election. But when the facts don’t fit the narrative, what are they to do?
supercanuck 9y ago
>According to figures published by Facebook last October, 44 percent of the Russian-bought ads were displayed before the 2016 election, while 56 percent were shown afterward. Why would they increase their investment on a failed ad campaign?
zaroth 9y ago
NYT has their head in the sand and is in full on damage control over the Mueller indictment of a dozen internet trolls. The so-called “troll factory” is pretty old news, reported widely in Russia last year. [1] They just keep writing these articles trying to “fact check” or otherwise disassemble a qualified primary source inside FB which goes against their narrative. NYT talks about the “millions of dollars” that Russia spent on the troll factory (how many millions? I’ve read that would be $2) to “influence the election”. The majority of which was spent after the election. The great Russian stolen election comes down to this? Either the Russians are exponentially better at advertising than the best minds in the DNC, or maybe the Russian boogeyman story is losing its shine. The NYT (and MSM media in general) is doing Russia’s job for them, which I have to assume is more than Moscow could have ever dreamed of. This is why Trump tweets they are laughing their asses off. People are desperate to see Trump’s election as illegitimate rather than confront the much scarier reality of why he won. Personally I rather hope the DNC figures this out sooner than later, and finds a candidate and a platform that is electable by 2024. [1] - https://www.rbc.ru/magazine/2017/11/59e0c17d9a79470e05a9e6c1 https://www.rbc.ru/magazine/2017/11/59e0c17d9a79470e05a9e6c1
- gandhium 9y ago
  > The so-called “troll factory” is pretty old news Why it's old news if they're still trolling? > Either the Russians are exponentially better at advertising than the best minds in the DNC No, just their labour is exponentially cheaper.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    The Internet, and social media in general, is just a trolls playground. Why do I care about a few dozen trolls in particular? Spending a few hundred thousand dollars promoting stories into news feeds. This is like worrying about my camp fire contributing to global warming. I can understand the desire to want to blame some great evil force for corrupting democracy, when it’s so much harder to look in the mirror. Personally I think the overall vitriol against Trump is the single biggest reason he won. Telling someone they’re a shitstain for their political beliefs is the surest-fire way to get them out to vote against you.
imhelpingu 9y ago
> "Why is educating citizens about digital literacy the solution to misinformation, as Mr. Goldman suggested, rather than fixing the tech platforms that make misinformation hard to distinguish from truth?" Literally, "why educate people when you can just restrict speech?"

42 points by uptown 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mtgx 9y ago

> He continued: “The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.” Not a fan of Facebook, but that I can believe.

asabjorn 9y ago
This seems like a very relevant piece of information. Why should anyone wish he didn’t say this if it is true? This seems to indicate that the election wasn’t compromised to the degree we thought.
- loorinm 9y ago
  See my comment above.
- jbigelow76 9y ago
  In the article the reporter indicates that Mueller's investigation states that advertising wasn't the most damaging part of Russia's FB efforts but rather posts shared through users walls.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    It seems much more problematic for a platform to control personal posts than to control abuse of advertising and promotion mechanisms. The narrative of NYT and much of the media has been that Russia manipulated the pre election by abusing advertising and promotion mechanisms, and debunking that seemingly false narrative is the point of his post. Am I missing something?
- learc83 9y ago
  Or it indicates that after better than expected results the Russian government drastically increased the budget for Facebook ads. There is no conspiracy to keep this information hidden, it's just a story that can be framed 2 ways. "Russia spent the majority of money on Facebook ads after the election." "Russia spent money on social media to influence the election. Then after analyzing the performance of their ad buys, they decided to ramp up spending on Facebook ads."
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    I would agree with you if the conversation topic wasn’t specifically how Russia meddled with the pre election result. People discredit the vote of half of the US people in the belief they were partially fooled by Russia, and if that is not true then discrediting their voice in such a way makes it hard for us to listen to each other’s different values and problems through discourse.
    - learc83 9y ago
      None of what you're saying is a logical argument against any part of my comment. I showed how this comment "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." doesn't say anything about the extent Russia was interfering before the election. The only thing that statement supports is that they were interfering even more after the election. You never refuted that. >People discredit the vote of half of the US people in the belief they were partially fooled by Russia, and if that is not true Again a completely invalid counter argument. I said that it likely is true. A valid counterargument would involve "no it's not true because...", not "if it's not true then I'm right".
      - asabjorn 9y ago
        I think you are missing the point of my comment; the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling, and this indicated that core parts of the evidence need closer scrutiny and that the case is not as straightforward as NYT etal has claimed. I am saying this as a libertarian that was upset about the election result. I personally thought something smelled fishy earlier given how the evidence was presented and believed what I read in NYT etal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- panarky 9y ago
  Because it's misdirection to focus on the timing of ad spend, when the bulk of the Russian influence operation was organic social not paid ads. The one entity in all of this who knows whether Russia's disinformation campaign is working is Russia itself. So if Russia is investing even more in spreading disinformation on Facebook after the election, isn't that pretty good evidence that their campaigns are working?
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    I am not sure I understand. How does someone using a different mechanism to spread disinformation post election indicate success of their pre election mechanisms for spreading disinformation? Both are problems and need fixing, but only pre election disinformation is relevant to the election result.
- makomk 9y ago
  Seems pretty clear why to me: "Mr. Goldman eventually walked back some of his statements, but it was too late. Mr. Goldman had just given Mr. Trump something that looked like a Facebook-stamped exoneration." The new standard of honest reporting has less to do with whether something is true or not, and is more about whether it fits into the correct anti-Trump narrative. (I even saw one of their well-known writers openly complaining on their popular verified Twitter account about the NYT veering from the narrative a few weeks back.) What's particularly interesting about this case is that the dangerous, divergent narrative which must not be spoken used to be the standard understanding of what Russian propaganda does: it stokes existing internal problems. Of course, the Times in particular has apparently always seen its role as pushing a narrative; I seem to recall at least one one piece by an ex-NYT employee talking about this made it to HN before.
- imhelpingu 9y ago
  > we
loorinm 9y ago
This detail exonerates no one. After successfully subverting our election, Russia has continued their effort toward the 2018 mid-terms. It’s working so why stop?
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
I wish I could find it now, but by "majority" he means 56%. Yes true, but not exactly as narrative changing as the quote seems at first.
- learc83 9y ago
  Here is a NYT article from back in October with exactly those numbers. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russia-ads-.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=666985C372F0C6D871A2780CEB772880&gwt=pay https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russi...
stevenwoo 9y ago
The article specifically points out the main thrust of the Russian operation uncovered so far was influencing voters through posts by individuals and pages, not by ads.

vthallam 9y ago

He indirectly said the media is running a biased campaign. Even if he personally means so, alienating all mainstream media who is already mad about facebook for various reasons at best could be termed as not clever. Also, there's a ongoing investigation and some indictments which say Russia ran a campaign, commenting about that, I don't know what he was thinking. I am thinking this will only add more focus to "FB as a tool to influence elections" narrative.

mzs 9y ago

also NYT, basically saying Rob Goldman's (ads VP) tweets defending FB were bupkis https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/facebook-executive-russia-tweets-fact-check.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/facebook-execu...

makomk 9y ago
Marcy Wheeler, who's been doing a lot of good writing on Trump, Russia and Mueller lately, wrote a rather scathing - and in my view fairly convincing - article criticising this claimed fact check: https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/19/in-two-so-called-fact-checks-of-facebook-nyt-forgets-everything-it-knows-about-indictments/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/19/in-two-so-called-fact-... (Not that it matters. The New York Times can convince the world that black is white and white is black, and everyone will believe them. Won't be the first time.)

nostromo 9y ago

"Facebook accidentally tells the truth, even though it's not helpful for Facebook politically. Facebook regrets the error."

loorinm 9y ago
Did you even read the article? The tweets are egregiously misleading and bring absolutely zero to facebook’s case for playing the victim.
- nostromo 9y ago
  From the article: > Some of Mr. Goldman’s claims may have been narrowly true, but they were a prime example of misdirection > Why should it reassure us that most of Russia’s Facebook advertising was purchased after the election, rather than telling us that Facebook continued to drop the ball even after it knew it had a Russia problem? The Times is admitting the tweets weren't wrong. The Times is criticizing Facebook's actions because they disrupted their preferred narrative of the election.
- zaroth 9y ago
  I haven’t read anything that would lead me to believe the tweets are misleading in the slightest. The clumsy NYT “Fact Check” least of all. In November CNN reported the IRA spent $100,000 on promoting content of FB. That’s compared to $81 million spent by the campaigns. Anyone who has actually used FB as an ad platform knows exactly how relevant the IRA was to Trump winning the election. But when the facts don’t fit the narrative, what are they to do?

supercanuck 9y ago

>According to figures published by Facebook last October, 44 percent of the Russian-bought ads were displayed before the 2016 election, while 56 percent were shown afterward. Why would they increase their investment on a failed ad campaign?

zaroth 9y ago

NYT has their head in the sand and is in full on damage control over the Mueller indictment of a dozen internet trolls. The so-called “troll factory” is pretty old news, reported widely in Russia last year. [1] They just keep writing these articles trying to “fact check” or otherwise disassemble a qualified primary source inside FB which goes against their narrative. NYT talks about the “millions of dollars” that Russia spent on the troll factory (how many millions? I’ve read that would be $2) to “influence the election”. The majority of which was spent after the election. The great Russian stolen election comes down to this? Either the Russians are exponentially better at advertising than the best minds in the DNC, or maybe the Russian boogeyman story is losing its shine. The NYT (and MSM media in general) is doing Russia’s job for them, which I have to assume is more than Moscow could have ever dreamed of. This is why Trump tweets they are laughing their asses off. People are desperate to see Trump’s election as illegitimate rather than confront the much scarier reality of why he won. Personally I rather hope the DNC figures this out sooner than later, and finds a candidate and a platform that is electable by 2024. [1] - https://www.rbc.ru/magazine/2017/11/59e0c17d9a79470e05a9e6c1 https://www.rbc.ru/magazine/2017/11/59e0c17d9a79470e05a9e6c1

gandhium 9y ago
> The so-called “troll factory” is pretty old news Why it's old news if they're still trolling? > Either the Russians are exponentially better at advertising than the best minds in the DNC No, just their labour is exponentially cheaper.
- zaroth 9y ago
  The Internet, and social media in general, is just a trolls playground. Why do I care about a few dozen trolls in particular? Spending a few hundred thousand dollars promoting stories into news feeds. This is like worrying about my camp fire contributing to global warming. I can understand the desire to want to blame some great evil force for corrupting democracy, when it’s so much harder to look in the mirror. Personally I think the overall vitriol against Trump is the single biggest reason he won. Telling someone they’re a shitstain for their political beliefs is the surest-fire way to get them out to vote against you.

imhelpingu 9y ago

> "Why is educating citizens about digital literacy the solution to misinformation, as Mr. Goldman suggested, rather than fixing the tech platforms that make misinformation hard to distinguish from truth?" Literally, "why educate people when you can just restrict speech?"