3 ms·
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
by 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 agoHow 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 agoIt'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 agoAll 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 agoBut 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...