18 ms·
All images of the Facebook ads Russians purchased during the election
- KarlRutnick 8y agoJesus, you'd think the people on here making comments got online yesterday. If this "russian' signal actually made any difference in all the noise 4ch are the new gods and must be locked up in Gitmo before they take over the world. Stop believing everything you seen on MSNBC you morons! Hackers my ass..
- mieseratte 8y agoHaving seen my fair share of vitriolic content during the past election cycle, most of these images honestly seem quiet tame.
- minitel 8y agoI think the point is that they pander to both sides of any argument to increase the divide and lessen the chances of society making a sane compromise. Much more effective than just spewing insanity and hyperbole. Extreme progressives would destabilize the country by setting up structural racism and sexism in order to achieve "equity", dissolving borders, gutting the police, and over taxing companies. Extreme rightists would destabilize the country by repealing too much of the social safety net, closing down the country to immigrants, militarizing the police, and letting companies behave anti-socially with no repercussions. Our enemies are smart to try to push us into embracing extreme policies. Either way they win. Because when our institutions start to fail we won't be able to project power anymore. It will draw us off of the world stage to some extent.
- stefan_ 8y agoNothing could ever make compromise more unlikely than a winner take all voting system that has then predictably created exactly two parties whose followers again following the incentives rarely have an original though beyond "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
- detuur 8y agoWorse yet: "the opposite policy of my enemy is my policy". We're seeing situations on both sides where people are taking positions in arguments solely because it's the opposite position of their opponents. Because taking any less than the polar opposite position would be seen as "going soft on them" by their electorate. It's a total shitshow.
- jessaustin 8y agoThe funniest example right now are the Rs who are against USA violence in Syria but for it in Iran, juxtaposed with the Ds who are against USA violence in Iran but for it in Syria. Syria and Iran are allies, and there is no compelling reason for USA violence in either nation. The whole war media narrative has really gone off the rails...
- labster 8y agoFalse equivalence, though. Syria is a country already in a civil war, where the nominal government has used chemical weapons on its own citizens multiple times, afawk. Iran is a stable partial democracy that is, afawk, complying with an international agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons. South Korea and the US are allies too, but only one of us is at war, albeit technically.
- throwaway84742 8y agoYou appear to be thoroughly brainwashed. 1. It’s not a “nominal” government, but the actual one. 2. The use of chemical weapons by Syrian government has never been proven. Moreover, it has no incentive whatsoever to use them. 3. Iran is not a democracy, partial or otherwise. Ayatollah decides everything.
- jessaustin 8y agoYeah if we talk to a Republican she'll have her own ridiculous arguments in the other direction. There is no "afawk". Every new detail we hear about supposed Syrian chemical attacks is worse for the war media narrative. And what's the point anyway? USA weapons are killing innocent people in at least five nations, right now. How would deaths of innocents in some other nation justify adding that other nation and its nuclear-superpower ally to our list? The only reason the "civil war" wasn't over years ago is that we have continued to flood it with munitions. Even after the supposed "good rebels" fled the area we continued to ship arms in, only to "whoops, they've mistakenly gone to ISIS again". ISIS only exists in the first place because of our ridiculous yet in retrospect remarkably similar decision to kill a bunch of innocent people in Iraq. How many times do they have to repeat this desultory performance before Americans remember what happened the last time they believed it?
- Sharlin 8y agoYeah. This is subtle manipulation; I guess Americans are accustomed to loud yelling and namecalling.
- Nydhal 8y ago> militarizing the police That's where the right-left model breaks. This is not an extreme right wing thing, it's statist authoritarianism. Can be embraced by both sides, extreme or not.
- mcintyre1994 8y agoI agree, if they control all these pages they were advertising as then it'd be much more interesting to see what they were showing the people who responded to these ads and liked their pages. A lot of them look like pages designed to radicalise . It'd also be interesting to see what the official campaigns targeted advertising looked like, including that of related arms length groups that presumably do the dirty work.
- lucb1e 8y ago> These are images of the Facebook ads the Russians purchased to try and alter the 2016 U.S. Election. These were released from Congress And what does congress base this on? Looking through a bunch, they don't seem to favor either Hillary or Donald... is it supposed to prove that the elections weren't tampered with? Or am I missing something? Edit: managed to find one! Against Donald: https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/russian-ads/2016-Q4/P(1)0004791-00000002.jpg https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/russian-ads/2016-Q4... Edit 2: Oh and 2017-Q3 has a lot in favor of Donald's wall and poses Hillary as satan (for no apparent reason). Perhaps that's the proof? By far the smallest album of them all? I am not saying I don't believe the Russians influenced the elections, but I do not see anything obvious for or against in this dataset, either.
- retox 8y agoProbably the same ignorance that leads all port scans from Russian VPNs to be labeled as RUSSIAN HAX. Some were paid for is rubles but anyone can do that. Here is the first image I clicked on at random. What is this evidence of? https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/russian-ads/2015-Q2/P(1)0002584-00000002.jpg https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/russian-ads/2015-Q2...
- RIMR 8y agoLooks like they're trying to get more subscribers for a group controlled by the Russian government, so that they can start propagandizing. What do you think that specific image disproves?
- robotrout 8y agoDude, take a breath. You're really pushing your own narrative here. Why so many posts that say the same thing? Seems like you have a point of view that you REALLY want others to share, which seems a little inappropriate in this context.
- astrodust 8y agoThe goal was to sow division, disrupt the entire process, and in the chaos their preferred candidate could thrive.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jonpon 8y agoI see a bunch of the pictures they advertised organized events. How did that work if these ads and supposedly pages were run by Russians? Were those events real? Who showed up? Who organized the protest on the ground?
- johnpowell 8y agoYes.. People showed up and got fighty. And this is a tiny blip compared to hacking into the DNC's email servers. I see a lot of these ads are stupid and people totally think that was all there was. The ads were the part of the iceberg you can see.
- jessaustin 8y agoWow that's so conspiracy-theory.
- RIMR 8y agoYeah, the ads were just the content they paid for. This doesn't take into account all the sockpuppet accounts on Facebook, Twitter and Reddit that were designed to swing conversations in the direction they wanted them to go. Also, link aggregator sites (like our very own HN) are susceptible to vote manipulation, which can promote the content the attackers want, and demote the content they don't want. These ads were just to rope people in. You can see that "Black Matters" has 200k+ members. Those are people who are now getting information directly from the Kremlin on their feeds now.
- the_cat_kittles 8y agoi cannot believe we still havent seen a major news story on reddit. the night and day takeover of the_donald was very obvious to me. i wish someone would write an in depth piece on the nature, scale and timeline of the operation there.
- stevenwoo 8y agoNot a major news source but online sources already broke it and reddit responded to those reports a year after the election. https://www.thedailybeast.com/reddit-check-out-our-russian-trolls-accounts-2 https://www.thedailybeast.com/reddit-check-out-our-russian-t... https://www.inquisitr.com/4790689/reddits-the_donald-was-one-of-the-biggest-havens-for-russian-propaganda-during-2016-election-analysis-finds/ https://www.inquisitr.com/4790689/reddits-the_donald-was-one...
- zerostar07 8y agoi wonder if this release is going to be the turning point for the current facebook anti-hype cycle? the ads don't paint such a horrible picture as it was supposed to be.
- Cowicide 8y agoYep, a picture of SpongeBob made me vote for Bernie instead of Hillary. Had nothing to do with her record or anything.
- RIMR 8y agoYou're trying to make a psychological argument against a sociological effect. No, a single Spongebob meme didn't sway your vote. This is obvious. But hundreds of thousands little manipulations of social media did have ripple effects throughout existing communities, and created a more divisive political atmosphere that absolutely could sway peoples votes. For example: Hillary doesn't really have all that bad a political history. She wasn't a great candidate, but she also wasn't the "Killary" character right-wing media portrays her as. You, however, think that "her record" is self-explanatory, because you keep hearing people talk about her as if she were the antichrist. I would be curious to hear about "her record" from you, but I suspect you're just going to bring up Benghazi, Uranium One, her e-mails, or maybe even Pizzagate to explain why she was unelectable. This, in the end, just illustrates the point that repeating misinformation constantly will convince people that it is the truth. At the end of the day, propaganda divided the DNC into two camps and turn those camps against each other, destroying any sense of unity during the election. You chose a side, it ended up being the losing side, and the whole debacle likely cost the Democrats the White House, yet you're still unable to see that you were played.
- mistermann 8y agoHow do you know so much about this person, are you aquaintances in real life?
- mistermann 8y ago
- jbuzbee 8y agoThe wording on many of these ads is odd. In hindsight they are clearly written by a non-native english writer, but perhaps the Facebook audience is used to awkward writing by their peers?
- Nydhal 8y agoThis is an indicator of a large scale operation. Scaling an operation entails a degree of tolerance to the degradation in the quality of the product, especially when the marginal benefit from quantity significantly exceeds that of quality. Cyber space is a high leverage domain which rules out the possibility of a shortage in resources from the opponent. It is also a recent evolving space which makes it more difficult to assess the opponents capabilities, reach and sophistication. By its nature this operation seems to be part of a bigger destabilisation strategy, maybe a stress test to validate different tactics. I would be really worried once the ads become well written which would increase the complexity of the situation since quality measures can be manipulated. In other words once they can fake "fake news", things might get really weird.
- ballenf 8y agoAny ideas how prohibiting these types of ads next election cycle will pass constitutional muster? Most were several steps removed from references to any election. And non-citizens residents are generally held to have rights under the 1st Amendment (https://www.google.com/search?q=non+citizens+1st+amendment https://www.google.com/search?q=non+citizens+1st+amendment) Or will it just be Facebook blocking them by way of policy?
- eric_h 8y ago> Or will it just be Facebook blocking them by way of policy? How do you even formulate the policy? Sure, you can ban/annotate the ads that are specifically about Clinton or Trump, but where do you draw the line? The fascinating thing about these ads is that most of them plucked on the political strings of the audience indirectly.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoYou require people to identify themselves when purchasing ads / displaying ads. The ads pretending to be radical American extreme views are less effective when you learn it's Sergei in St. Petersburg posting...
- eric_h 8y agoI'm sure a foreign intelligence service will be stopped by identification requirements...
- alexandercrohde 8y agoYour sarcasm isn't convincing or appreciated.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- HoppedUpMenace 8y agoAll of these ads shared one thing in common... They appealed to ignorance and the uneducated across every demographic, and it worked.
- RIMR 8y agoDoes anybody have a source that isn't a gore site? With that said: Do not visit the root domain if you don't like seeing lots of mutilated dead people.
- coastal-fiesta 8y agoYikes, thanks for the warning. Almost visited the page at work.
- slipperymate 8y agohttps://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/facebook-ads/social-media-advertisements.htm https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/facebook-ads/social...
- Natsu 8y agoI found this imgur album easier to read than individual PDFs: https://imgur.com/a/ZjQ3PLS https://imgur.com/a/ZjQ3PLS The WaPo also has them sorted by popularity: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/10/these-are-the-most-popular-russian-facebook-ads-from-each-month/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/10/t...
- ithilglin909 8y agoI’m sincerely at a loss for how most/many of these could have influenced the election. Part of me think that Congress is making mistakes and Putin is scrolling through these, laughing hysterically that we actually think he’d pay for this nonsense.
- richsherwood 8y agoMost of these pages won’t be so forthcoming in their desire to influence. The idea for these ads is to pay for reach and credibility. Send it out there and hope that it goes viral. After which you’ve gathered a whole new army of people who have liked your seemingly innocent page. After that it’s just a matter controlling the tone on that page using bots to create a false narrative. As humans, we are so used to be told what to do that it becomes easy to follow the general flow of your social circle. If everybody you hang out with hates one politician, then the chances that you’re also going to hate that politician is high. So by creating pockets of people who are all there on the page because they have something in common, you can control it and therefore controlling the direction of their thoughts by manipulating their peer circles.
- RIMR 8y agoThe ads were mostly for Facebook groups. Once those groups had a substantial subscribership, the Russians were able to push out far more vitriolic propaganda without having to pay for the audience. The ads are just the tip of the iceberg.
- c-smile 8y agoRepeating "just the tip of the iceberg" three times in this discussion already looks like programming of public opinion kind of thing. Without proof of any sort. That trick is as old as the Church that invented it for the obvious purpose. That's like "election meddling" repeated on CNN 10 times per day just to convince people "it was something but we will not tell you what". UPDATE: here is the story of the same trick used while ago: https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/meet-guy-sims-fitch-a-fake-writer-invented-by-the-us-g-1787060769 https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/meet-guy-sims-fitch-a-fake-w...
- rubycowgames 8y agoWould be great if FB released the audience targeting data associated with these images. Context and audience matters when it comes to advertising.
- ripdog 8y agoSee the WaPo post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/10/these-are-the-most-popular-russian-facebook-ads-from-each-month/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3193924c613 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/10/t... Each image includes some targeting info.
- newsat13 8y agoThat was anti-climatic. How exactly did these ads sway the election? In fact, many of them are pro-gay and have liberal idea.
- RIMR 8y agoThe ads were for Facebook groups, so once they built up a decent subscriber count, they had an audience to propagandize to without paying. As for the pro-LGBT/liberal ads: One of the strategies the Russians used here was to infiltrate and divide. Only propagandizing to one side of the American political spectrum isn't as effective as playing both sides and turning them against each other. These ads are just the tip of the iceberg. There were still countless bots and sockpuppet accounts used to sway people one way or the other - but typically against one another.
- trothamel 8y agoI don't believe the Russian goal was to sway the election. I think it was to try to exploit identity politics on both sides, to make the US less united, and hence to distract attention from Russia and what they've been doing. (For example, in Crimea - remember that?) It's worked really well, and keeps working today.
- dingo_bat 8y agoThinking that these Facebook ads influenced the election in any meaningful way is dumb, let alone swaying it in a desired direction.
- ufmace 8y agoI don't think their goal was actually to sway the election. They know well enough that their work is pocket change compared to what both parties' campaigns and ordinary American activists on both sides already do. What they want to do is increase the divisions in our society. The more we fight each other, the less political "bandwidth" we have to project power internationally. If both parties are unified in pursuit of one goal, then we may act vigorously on it over the long term through the course of multiple changes in which party controls what. If both parties can't stand each other enough to cooperate on anything, then foreign policy and behavior will be half-hearted pushes in constantly changing directions. Russia can't and doesn't want to control us entirely. They do want us to not interfere effectively in their attempts to control the neighboring Eastern European states.
- ghba66 8y agoWhy are they in this format? They look like my grandma took a screenshot, pasted the image in a Word document and then printed it
- cddotdotslash 8y agoBecause the Democrats on the congressional committee that released them released them as 300+ MB PDFs. This site just printed them all as images and posted as-is.
- John_KZ 8y agoIs there any indication of any sort that this content isn't just random ads? Do I have to just take your word for it?
- icebraining 8y agoslipperymate posted the direct link to the official release: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17051425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17051425
- heartbreak 8y agoThe complete and utter intentional lack of understanding of the current Russian influence campaign, the ongoing congressional investigations, and the special council investigation in this thread is appalling. Once upon a time I thought HN was: A) Well-informed, and B) Not a place for political discussion. Honestly if you can’t find fact from fiction in news articles, just read the damn source documents. You’d probably find it fascinating, instead of just something to dismiss as a bunch of politically-motivated time-wasting. I know this comment is against the guidelines, but so is nearly every single comment on this story.
- philtar 8y agoI think you seriously overestimate how unbiased you are. I say this because you talk as if it's easy to separate fact from fiction these days. If you think it's easy, then I think there are some very important things you're missing.
- heartbreak 8y agoI wish my point came across clearer. It wasn’t that I am unbiased. It’s that the comments on this story are willfully ignorant of what we do know. For example it hasn’t been a secret for well over a year that the Russian disinformation played both sides. Yet what do we find? Repeated surprise at the lack of onesidedness in the linked advertisements.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y agoThere is a media/political machine at work every day pumping out propaganda that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to "hack" the election in Trump's favor. It should not be surprising that this has been effective in priming people to believe that Russian social media psyops (this is decidedly not "disinformation" as it is largely information-free) were specifically targeted toward glorifying Trump and demonizing Clinton.
- gfodor 8y agoYour comment may have been cathartic but it basically leaves me wondering what you are talking about? Which source documents? What "understanding?" So far the press's reporting on this has been appalling, and in general the public has been kept in the dark.
- downer56 8y agoJFC, none of these advertisements or the premise of their facebook groups are persuasive, and not nearly to the point that one could chalk up the Trump victory to a victory for some kind of psychological propaganda maneuver with Facebook at its core. I doubt that this is ALL of everything, but the undercurrent of tone deaf efforts to play agent provocateur are underwhelming. I look at this, whatever it’s supposed to be, and I think about people on the fence about how to cast their vote, and this doesn’t look like it would move the needle. There are two possibilities, either this is not representative of Russian Facebook propaganda to tip the scale for a Trump victory, and what ever really happened might be more believable. Or, this is exactly what it claims to be, and we go on believing the narrative that gets shovelled down our throats. If this is what Russian subterfuge actually looks like, then Trump is in office for other reasons.
- eric_h 8y agoThis is really a pretty fascinating example of psyops in the wild. Propaganda for both "tribes" assembled in opposition over various issues in order to sow more division between them. Imagery clearly designed to influence with emotion, twisting the dials of fear, anger and pride in the audience. The power to disseminate information (or disinformation) is not one that should be taken lightly. It seems that most of the human race was deployed to production with a pretty critical RCE vulnerability, and the patches available (education in its various forms) do not appear to be sufficient to protect the whole system from corruption.
- dilap 8y agohow are these any different than the standard appeal to emotion arguments that groups make in good faith? e.g., why is an ad trying to raise awareness about black lives matter from russia any different than an ad trying to raise awareness about black lives matter from black lives matter? > The power to disseminate information (or disinformation) is not one that should be taken lightly. curious to know if you believe the power to disseminate info should be regulated by the govt.
- eric_h 8y ago> how are these any different than the standard appeal to emotion arguments that groups make in good faith? That's what's so fascinating about this. I don't see a reasonable way to prevent it from happening. The tools optimized for extracting money from people are also apparently pretty good at sowing discord. > curious to know if you believe the power to disseminate info should be regulated by the govt. The term "pirate radio" is a thing. The internet democratized the power to disseminate information without permission or consequence (with some exceptions, obviously), and I think that's a good thing. Honestly at this point the only reasonable solution I can come up with is a "one weird trick" ad campaign that directs people to a magically effective MOOC on critical thinking.
- roywiggins 8y agoThe internet was not quite so bad before content recommendation engines. It was very much a "pull" experience, other than banner ads for porn and malware. Now, Google and Facebook can specialize their content directly to you and your interests. Watch a slightly out of mainstream video? Maybe you would like this one that's further out there. And the more you click, the more YouTube thinks it knows you, and it can keep feeding you worse stuff. It's not that it's being malicious exactly, but it's got an ability to push you that Web 1.0 just didn't have. It used to be that you would go down a link rabbit hole and maybe find some really awful stuff, but the next day the only thing that remembers it is your own browser. Nobody comes along and starts emailing you about it.
- vivekd 8y agoWhat's interesting is who they targeted - they targeted right wing patriotic movements as well as left wing gay rights groups and minorities who may feel disenfranchised like Muslims and blacks. It's as if they looked at America's very polarized and heated political environment and saw it as an opportunity to create division.
- mythrwy 8y agoIs it just me or does Q3 2017 have the same ad 5 out of 8 times? Also is it just me or does the domain "documentingreality.com" sound like it's probably going to document something else.
- seba_dos1 8y agoIt sounds like that, however, if you check the root of that domain you will see that it's a forum for gore photos and videos from real accidents, deaths or medical conditions, so the domain name is somewhat proper :P
- nodesocket 8y agoAll Americans on both sides should be outraged at Russia. Their goal is to further divide us via social media and thus news which they have been extremely successful at. This idea of misinformation, mallace, trolling, psychological warfare is the single most issue about technology that makes me uneasy and nervous.
- paulcole 8y agoCan we be outraged at ourselves for falling for this bullshit?
- nodesocket 8y agoNo, even some of the "quote" smartest people I know fall for it. It's a seperate part of the brain. That's why I always try facts > emotion politically.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- telltruth 8y agoWhy were Russians doing ads to support democratic cause? I thought it was strongly believed that they wanted Trump to win. Doing some divisive thing to get some sort of twisted outcome feels like far out conspiracy. That bring me to question: how much confidence do we have these are Russian state sponsored ad?
- peoplewindow 8y agoI was wondering how far down I'd have to scroll to find the first sensible comment. Congrats. The internal logic of these claims is non-existent. During the actual campaign Hillary and her supporters were convinced Russia (the generic bogeyman of the western establishment everywhere) was shilling for Trump. After all Trump was a lot more friendly and Hillary was stating that she'd shoot Russian planes out of the sky over Syria, so such a motive would have at least made sense. Now that whole narrative fell apart entirely. We have the head of famously anti-gay and conservative Russia posting LGBT memes and supporting Hillary, despite the risk of war between Russia and America should she have won. Yet, the desire to believe is so strong, that like all conspiracy theories it's simply morphed into whatever the smallest step to fitting with new information is, that preserves the core. Now it's all a genius plan to "sow division" by posting pictures of fox statues made of shotgun cartridges. Quite why Russia specifically benefits from generalised "division" or why US culture needed help being divided is left unexplained. This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect to see if people with strong motivations were looking at noise. Leading us to your last question: how much confidence do we have these are Russian state sponsored ad? We only appear to have Facebook's word for it. But you have to watch out. One of the subtle ways this conspiracy theory tends to morph and warp is the distinction between the Russian government and Russians. Even in the headline of this thread, note that it's "Russians" and not "the Russian government". There are liberal Russians. There are conservative Russians. There are 144 million Russians, a little under half the population of the USA itself. If even 0.1% of them decided they cared about the globally-famous US election, and if Facebook had simply selected "ads paid for by Russians", then this is exactly what you would see - a mishmash of stuff with no unifying theme or agenda. Or Facebook could have just made a mistake. The government asked them to find evidence of Russian interference, and let's face it, going back with "there's nothing there you are all delusional" is not a good political strategy. I'm sure they felt they had to find something.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- codedokode 8y agoRussia was allegedly buying pro-LGBT ads? Surprising. Also there are several posts with russian text on the picture like this one [1]. But this doesn't look like a state-level operation. A single person could easily make all those pictures. [1] https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/russian-ads/2015-Q2/P(1)0001844-00000002.jpg https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/russian-ads/2015-Q2...
- alexandercrohde 8y agoSo there are few distinct elements to this, that we should think about independently. A - Is this type of advertising scary? [Really all this post is about] B - Did Russia try to change the election? C - Did they succeed? My thoughts: A - It is to me. B - As far as I understand, this is conclusively yes, based on the fact that multiple politicians have plead guilty to collaborating. [1] C - I don't know. For me it's not about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)#Criminal_charges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_...
- creaghpatr 8y agoNo politician/Russian has pled guilt to collaborating (which is not a real crime) the closest thing they have charged is conspiracy to defraud and I expect they will have to drop those in the long run, you should read the charges more carefully.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoRick Gates plead guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States, however it appears that's not Trump related. I think it may be correct to pick on some of the details, but as far as I can tell there's overwhelming evidence that Russian agents tried to influence the election, and anybody who denies that I assume does so for partisan reasons.
- Grue3 8y agoFun fact: this site is currently blocked in Russia by Roskomnadzor.
- nkjhecgh 8y agohttps://archive.org/download/FacebookAdsFull/FacebookAdsFull.pdf https://archive.org/download/FacebookAdsFull/FacebookAdsFull... Having all ads rolled into a single PDF makes them searchable and more readable. via https://twitter.com/profcarroll/status/995671847013412864 https://twitter.com/profcarroll/status/995671847013412864
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]