5 ms·

So the long standing rumor is that Russia influenced the US election through Facebook. Okay, fine. You know what I want to hear about? The wealthy Americans wh

So the long standing rumor is that Russia influenced the US election through Facebook. Okay, fine. You know what I want to hear about? The wealthy Americans who used Facebook to influence the US election. If Facebook can be used in this way, I think looking at what Russia did is interesting, but it’s not the only story! The story is, people are subtly and quietly influincing our elections! Shouldn’t we look closely at everyone who did that? Not solely the Russian bogeyman?

code_duck 8y ago
No, that’s nice but it’s a different issue. We already have plenty of inquiry into the influence of Americans with money on politics, with Citizens United and whatnot. A hostile foreign government’s operations to propagandize Americans about politics is important to analyze.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  Call it a different issue, that’s fine. But it’s an issue I want to hear about! I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I have over Russia.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I’ve seen plenty of concern over citizens United and the unfair influence of money in politics, so you might want to broaden your sources. Your posts remind me of basically what Trump is saying, that evil things that other countries do are fine because we are hypocrites, or other countries attacking us is okay because it’s our fault we’re vulnerable.
    - jshevek 8y ago
      I've never heard Trump say this. I would be happy to read any sources or analysis which supports your claim. Original: I’ve seen plenty of concern over citizens United and the unfair influence of money in politics, so you might want to broaden your sources. Your posts remind me of basically what Trump is saying, that evil things that other countries do are fine because we are hypocrites, or other countries attacking us is okay because it’s our fault we’re vulnerable.
      - code_duck 8y ago
        I can easily back up what I said about trump. When asked about Putin and Russia killing people, he said the US killed many people (a very well known incident - do I need to google it for you?) When he spoke just a few days ago, he said that while Russia may have hacked the DNC, they also tried to hack the RNC and didn’t get in due to their superior defenses (which is incidentally false, they did get hacked). And, that it was the Democratic Party’s fault that they had weak protection. Again, a very well known incident analyzed on detail widely in our media - want me to google it for you? Ha, thanks for quoting me. Gosh, I promise not to edit. This is silly. Your post is pretty much advertising that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you still down voted me and replied.
        echochamberhn 8y ago
        Hillary lost. She was a shit candidate. Get over it.
        jshevek 8y ago
        Neither of your subsequent characterizations of Trump's statements justifies the original claim you made. I'd be happy to read any supporting evidence which does so, without hyperbole or misrepresentation. "I can easily back up what I said about trump. When asked about Putin and Russia killing people, he said the US killed many people (a very well known incident - do I need to google it for you?) When he spoke just a few days ago, he said that while Russia may have hacked the DNC, they also tried to hack the RNC and didn’t get in due to their superior defenses (which is incidentally false, they did get hacked). And, that it was the Democratic Party’s fault that they had weak protection. Again, a very well known incident analyzed on detail widely in our media - want me to google it for you? Ha, thanks for quoting me. Gosh, I promise not to edit. This is silly. Your post is pretty much advertising that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you still down voted me and replied."
        code_duck 8y ago
        I have absolutely no idea why you think you need to quote me. I can’t even edit my responses at this point, and I do not back down from anything I say. Simply because you plead ignorance about plain facts is not persuasive. If you are confused about this, maybe you should do some research - Simply searching the keywords in my statements would easily supply the evidence that you claim doesn’t exist. It’s not my job to inform you. There’s a certain method of dispute on discussion forums like this where when someone sees facts that they dislike, they will insist that it has to be cited, from a source hey approve of course! Otherwise they will loudly insist that it is clearly false, because the other person didn’t take all the time to cut and paste a bunch of links and do web searches, as if this is a Wikipedia article or something. Nothing I posted is even remotely controversial, except perhaps to people who are firmly convinced of the opposite already. If you feel my statements contained hyperbole or misrepresentation, could you please clarify that? Because I’m not seeing any trace of that in what I said. In your statements, I just see flat denials without no content. In fact, you are misrepresenting the content and character of my statements.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I have over Russia. If you haven't heard the hand-wringing over the influence of money in politics in the US, you've literally paid zero attention to any US politics for at least the last, oh, half century. (And the hand-wringing didn't start then, it's just been ubiquitous for about that long; it's really older than the US, since the main line of complaint in the US on that score is basically a continuation of a complaint about the political influence of moneyed special interests that has been repeated fairly consistently, in every generation, since it appeared in The Wealth of Nations.) OTOH, the problem, while widely viewed a significant, is also widely accepted as a routine and perennial feature of liberal democracy, whereas a foreign influence operation deeply bound up with a domestic Presidential campaign is still considered unusual and extreme.
- hhh 8y ago
  It should be equally as important as any other valid hostile entity with proven strength.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Sure, like which entities do you mean? I think it is worth distinguishing from domestic and external, and state actors vs. non-state.
- kuraudo 8y ago
  I'll believe that it's important to analyze a foreign government's operations to propagandize Americans when we start analyzing Israel's long campaign to do the same.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    That’s a great topic too. But I don’t think we need to wait for one to do the other. It’s also worth noting that we did not fight an extremely expensive and unnerving political struggle for 60 years with Israel, and we are at no risk of entering into hostilities with Israel.
dahdum 8y ago
Russia spend is estimated at $100k between 2015 and 2017, when Trump and Clinton spent $81M on Facebook alone. I've spent more than the Russians did on Facebook ads, to think that amount of money was a deciding factor is pretty absurd.
- swsieber 8y ago
  Is it absurd though? Russia probably didn't follow any disclosure laws. Also, these ads are more about driving traffic to groups with content designed to influence people without coming off as ads. I guess the real question is how much Clinton and Trump spent on astro-turfing vs Russia's ads.
  - aksss 8y ago
    It's absurd. 100k vs 81m. If their ads were that much more effective for that much less money, they've not just got the best marketing pros in the business, they've discovered some revolutionary secret to advertising. What's the most likely explanation? 100k ads from Russia tilted the election, or Hillary was a shit candidate. Could it be that someone's ego is at play in this narrative besides Trump's?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
cm2187 8y ago
No, when Obama does it, it’s a smart use of new technologies. When Trump gets elected it’s a foreign nation that stole the election. Also the front page of the Economist this week is about why the US electoral system is biased in favor of Republicans and therefore needs to be reformed (and of course this wasn’t an issue a few years ago when the very same system was thought to structurally favour democrats, and likely to block Trump). Not a US voter, no skin in the game myself (and I would vote neither D nor R anyway), but I find all these excuses to a lost election unconvincing.
ljw1001 8y ago
You seem to be conflating the workings of a flawed democracy with meddling by a foreign power. Those are nothing like the same thing.
- dbtc 8y ago
  Vladimir Putin and Robert Mercer both seem like foreign powers to me.

code_duck 8y ago

No, that’s nice but it’s a different issue. We already have plenty of inquiry into the influence of Americans with money on politics, with Citizens United and whatnot. A hostile foreign government’s operations to propagandize Americans about politics is important to analyze.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Call it a different issue, that’s fine. But it’s an issue I want to hear about! I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I have over Russia.
- code_duck 8y ago
  I’ve seen plenty of concern over citizens United and the unfair influence of money in politics, so you might want to broaden your sources. Your posts remind me of basically what Trump is saying, that evil things that other countries do are fine because we are hypocrites, or other countries attacking us is okay because it’s our fault we’re vulnerable.
  - jshevek 8y ago
    I've never heard Trump say this. I would be happy to read any sources or analysis which supports your claim. Original: I’ve seen plenty of concern over citizens United and the unfair influence of money in politics, so you might want to broaden your sources. Your posts remind me of basically what Trump is saying, that evil things that other countries do are fine because we are hypocrites, or other countries attacking us is okay because it’s our fault we’re vulnerable.
    - code_duck 8y ago
      I can easily back up what I said about trump. When asked about Putin and Russia killing people, he said the US killed many people (a very well known incident - do I need to google it for you?) When he spoke just a few days ago, he said that while Russia may have hacked the DNC, they also tried to hack the RNC and didn’t get in due to their superior defenses (which is incidentally false, they did get hacked). And, that it was the Democratic Party’s fault that they had weak protection. Again, a very well known incident analyzed on detail widely in our media - want me to google it for you? Ha, thanks for quoting me. Gosh, I promise not to edit. This is silly. Your post is pretty much advertising that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you still down voted me and replied.
      - echochamberhn 8y ago
        Hillary lost. She was a shit candidate. Get over it.
      - jshevek 8y ago
        Neither of your subsequent characterizations of Trump's statements justifies the original claim you made. I'd be happy to read any supporting evidence which does so, without hyperbole or misrepresentation. "I can easily back up what I said about trump. When asked about Putin and Russia killing people, he said the US killed many people (a very well known incident - do I need to google it for you?) When he spoke just a few days ago, he said that while Russia may have hacked the DNC, they also tried to hack the RNC and didn’t get in due to their superior defenses (which is incidentally false, they did get hacked). And, that it was the Democratic Party’s fault that they had weak protection. Again, a very well known incident analyzed on detail widely in our media - want me to google it for you? Ha, thanks for quoting me. Gosh, I promise not to edit. This is silly. Your post is pretty much advertising that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you still down voted me and replied."
        code_duck 8y ago
        I have absolutely no idea why you think you need to quote me. I can’t even edit my responses at this point, and I do not back down from anything I say. Simply because you plead ignorance about plain facts is not persuasive. If you are confused about this, maybe you should do some research - Simply searching the keywords in my statements would easily supply the evidence that you claim doesn’t exist. It’s not my job to inform you. There’s a certain method of dispute on discussion forums like this where when someone sees facts that they dislike, they will insist that it has to be cited, from a source hey approve of course! Otherwise they will loudly insist that it is clearly false, because the other person didn’t take all the time to cut and paste a bunch of links and do web searches, as if this is a Wikipedia article or something. Nothing I posted is even remotely controversial, except perhaps to people who are firmly convinced of the opposite already. If you feel my statements contained hyperbole or misrepresentation, could you please clarify that? Because I’m not seeing any trace of that in what I said. In your statements, I just see flat denials without no content. In fact, you are misrepresenting the content and character of my statements.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I have over Russia. If you haven't heard the hand-wringing over the influence of money in politics in the US, you've literally paid zero attention to any US politics for at least the last, oh, half century. (And the hand-wringing didn't start then, it's just been ubiquitous for about that long; it's really older than the US, since the main line of complaint in the US on that score is basically a continuation of a complaint about the political influence of moneyed special interests that has been repeated fairly consistently, in every generation, since it appeared in The Wealth of Nations.) OTOH, the problem, while widely viewed a significant, is also widely accepted as a routine and perennial feature of liberal democracy, whereas a foreign influence operation deeply bound up with a domestic Presidential campaign is still considered unusual and extreme.
hhh 8y ago
It should be equally as important as any other valid hostile entity with proven strength.
- code_duck 8y ago
  Sure, like which entities do you mean? I think it is worth distinguishing from domestic and external, and state actors vs. non-state.
kuraudo 8y ago
I'll believe that it's important to analyze a foreign government's operations to propagandize Americans when we start analyzing Israel's long campaign to do the same.
- code_duck 8y ago
  That’s a great topic too. But I don’t think we need to wait for one to do the other. It’s also worth noting that we did not fight an extremely expensive and unnerving political struggle for 60 years with Israel, and we are at no risk of entering into hostilities with Israel.

dahdum 8y ago

Russia spend is estimated at $100k between 2015 and 2017, when Trump and Clinton spent $81M on Facebook alone. I've spent more than the Russians did on Facebook ads, to think that amount of money was a deciding factor is pretty absurd.

swsieber 8y ago
Is it absurd though? Russia probably didn't follow any disclosure laws. Also, these ads are more about driving traffic to groups with content designed to influence people without coming off as ads. I guess the real question is how much Clinton and Trump spent on astro-turfing vs Russia's ads.
- aksss 8y ago
  It's absurd. 100k vs 81m. If their ads were that much more effective for that much less money, they've not just got the best marketing pros in the business, they've discovered some revolutionary secret to advertising. What's the most likely explanation? 100k ads from Russia tilted the election, or Hillary was a shit candidate. Could it be that someone's ego is at play in this narrative besides Trump's?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

cm2187 8y ago

No, when Obama does it, it’s a smart use of new technologies. When Trump gets elected it’s a foreign nation that stole the election. Also the front page of the Economist this week is about why the US electoral system is biased in favor of Republicans and therefore needs to be reformed (and of course this wasn’t an issue a few years ago when the very same system was thought to structurally favour democrats, and likely to block Trump). Not a US voter, no skin in the game myself (and I would vote neither D nor R anyway), but I find all these excuses to a lost election unconvincing.

ljw1001 8y ago

You seem to be conflating the workings of a flawed democracy with meddling by a foreign power. Those are nothing like the same thing.

dbtc 8y ago
Vladimir Putin and Robert Mercer both seem like foreign powers to me.