4 ms·
This is interesting, but it's not clear from the article what the groups in question were actually doing - they don't seem to be directly connected to the repub
by zapt02 8y ago
This is interesting, but it's not clear from the article what the groups in question were actually doing - they don't seem to be directly connected to the republican party or Russia.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vuln 8y agoObviously Facebook wasn't making enough revenue from these accounts / page(s) to turn a blind eye. Give Facebook $100k and they'll allow you to upend a democracy.
- Timpy 8y agoGive a politician $100K and they'll allow you to upend a democracy
- vuln 8y agoThe combined amount spent in the 2016 presidental campaign was over 5 billion dollars. Maybe Russian money is worth more? https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/03/07/the-2016-presidential-money-race https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/03/07/the-2016...
- cm2012 8y agoThe thing is, the ad spend of the bad actors during the election was basically inconsequential. But the organic reach was huge since inflammatory fake stuff spreads easily, especially if you pay 100s of people controlling individual accounts to boost it.
- vuln 8y ago$100k versus 5 billion dollars spent by the presidential campaigns. Why are these people working for the IRA? Wouldn't they make billions in marketing anything other than political division? https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/03/07/the-2016-presidential-money-race https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/03/07/the-2016...
- cm2012 8y agoLike I just said, it's specifically not about the ads. It's about the farm of fake content creators. They don't work for anyone else because it's state supported and also not particularly skilled, just no real companies would do that kind of astroturfing.