4 ms·

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 c

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.
      - learc83 9y ago
        No you're failing to engage in a discussion. "the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling" How does that have anything to do with my assertion that this "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." doesn't make it any less likely that Russia interfered in the election? You still haven't showed why "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." decreases the likelihood that Russia successfully interfered in the election. You don't seem to be actually reading what I'm writing. If you want to continue debating please respond with why Russia spending even more money after a successful ad campaign is evidence that they didn't impact the election. If you'd rather not then good day.
        asabjorn 9y ago
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

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.
    - learc83 9y ago
      No you're failing to engage in a discussion. "the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling" How does that have anything to do with my assertion that this "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." doesn't make it any less likely that Russia interfered in the election? You still haven't showed why "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." decreases the likelihood that Russia successfully interfered in the election. You don't seem to be actually reading what I'm writing. If you want to continue debating please respond with why Russia spending even more money after a successful ad campaign is evidence that they didn't impact the election. If you'd rather not then good day.
      - asabjorn 9y ago

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