3 ms·

> insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism they did change the outcome of a US election, and probably the course of world history, which is more than all

> insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism they did change the outcome of a US election, and probably the course of world history, which is more than all of the anti-trump media combined, so that is a pretty big accomplishment ...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fixermark 8y ago
Maybe. They likely had an impact. The money spent by Russian intelligence to run propaganda via social media should likely be counted as at least as influential.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  How much money did Russian intelligence spend on such ads on social media? I googled "how much money did russia spend on facebook ads" but the numbers I see in that result are surprisingly small, so I'm wondering if you have a better source.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    It's not the quantity they spent; it's the efficacy of the micro-targeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      All parties involved were microtargetting, no? The Trump side certainly was, what with all that Cambridge Analytical shit and whatnot. How much did Trump and similar non-Russian PACs spend on microtargetted facebook ads, compared to Russian intelligence? Your article contains no hint of this. I think we're all aware that Russian intelligence was buying a lot of ads on social media, but I'm trying to understand the relative scope of this. To be frank, the scope of Russian propaganda seems dwarfed by domestic propaganda. The propagandists who deserve the most blame are probably Americans, or were paid by Americans.
    - Varcht 8y ago
      But it doesn't work, right? Just look at "Project Birmingham"... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/secret-campaign-to-use-russian-inspired-tactics-in-2017-alabama-election-stirs-anxiety-for-democrats/2019/01/06/58803f26-0400-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?utm_term=.350e17299db1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/secret-ca...
zozbot123 8y ago
They did it for teh lulz. Fits just right with Assange's narcissism.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fixermark 8y ago

Maybe. They likely had an impact. The money spent by Russian intelligence to run propaganda via social media should likely be counted as at least as influential.

darkpuma 8y ago
How much money did Russian intelligence spend on such ads on social media? I googled "how much money did russia spend on facebook ads" but the numbers I see in that result are surprisingly small, so I'm wondering if you have a better source.
- fixermark 8y ago
  It's not the quantity they spent; it's the efficacy of the micro-targeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    All parties involved were microtargetting, no? The Trump side certainly was, what with all that Cambridge Analytical shit and whatnot. How much did Trump and similar non-Russian PACs spend on microtargetted facebook ads, compared to Russian intelligence? Your article contains no hint of this. I think we're all aware that Russian intelligence was buying a lot of ads on social media, but I'm trying to understand the relative scope of this. To be frank, the scope of Russian propaganda seems dwarfed by domestic propaganda. The propagandists who deserve the most blame are probably Americans, or were paid by Americans.
  - Varcht 8y ago
    But it doesn't work, right? Just look at "Project Birmingham"... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/secret-campaign-to-use-russian-inspired-tactics-in-2017-alabama-election-stirs-anxiety-for-democrats/2019/01/06/58803f26-0400-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?utm_term=.350e17299db1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/secret-ca...

zozbot123 8y ago

They did it for teh lulz. Fits just right with Assange's narcissism.