Not Again: Facebook Detects Political Interference Ahead of US Midterms

[AndrewFreedman]

Facebook has identified coordinated attempts have been operating on its social media platform in an attempt to influence the United States' midterm elections this November.

Not Again: Facebook Detects Political Interference Ahead of US Midterms : Read more

 

[redgarl]

Hope the stock crash.

 

[venym]

If you base your voting decisions on what you read on Facebook then no matter what you are poorly informed. If you think everything you read on Facebook is true, then you are an idiot.

 

[stdragon]

Facebook is a giant political PSYOP machine. If you base your politics based on what's in FB, then by definition, you're a LIV (low information voter).

The Zuck has taken everyone, including the shareholders for a ride! If he's not already laughing all the way to the bank, he should be! The dude is a Machiavellian genius!

 

[jaredvoulo]

This is doubling down on an alibi leading up to November because these people see the writing on the wall which is there is NO BLUE WAVE COMING. It must be THE RUSSIANS... NOT THE BOOMING ECONOMY or the record high market or record low unemployment. This is fodder for the criminally stupid. Pleas excuse me if I take no stock in the rantings of an organization who censors conservative though and opinion like eating a bowl of cornflakes.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@jaredvoulo multiple US intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) have agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election in favour of Trump/Republicans, it doesn't seem that far fetched that they'd try to do it again. Whether or not the interference in 2016 actually resulted in changing the outcome of the election, or whether any interference in the midterm elections will do so, I have no idea.

 

[ubercake]

Darn those Russians! It's all their fault!

What am I to do now???

Since I am incapable of thinking on my own and without Russian influence on FB, I'll now have to vote based on corporate, special interest, European (minus Russian), Asian (minus Russian), African, South American and Australian influences or whoever else wants to guide me to act. Geesh!?

 

[jaredvoulo]

@tj hooker Unless you or anyone else can produce evidence that an electoral machine was hacked, this is the stupidest premise on the face of the Earth. I guess we are just drones that are incapable of making our own decisions unless we read them from a RUSSIAN source on Facebook. This is completely laughable. The dumbest premise to a completely FAKE argument I have EVER seen in my life. But these people LOVE to double down on failure and stupidity. It's a bold move Cotton. Let's see how that works out for them in November.

 

[dudmont]

The fact that outside countries seek to try to gain advantage as a result of elections in any country is not new. It's been going on for a long time. I would be worried if I went to the voting booth and there was a fellow there who reeked of vodka and put a gun into my back and told me who I had to vote for, otherwise, my concern is nil. The excuse for the result of 2016 is sorry and weak.

 

[stdragon]

[quotemsg=21192130,0,1636679]@jaredvoulo multiple US intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) have agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election in favour of Trump/Republicans, it doesn't seem that far fetched that they'd try to do it again. Whether or not the interference in 2016 actually resulted in changing the outcome of the election, or whether any interference in the midterm elections will do so, I have no idea.[/quotemsg]

Technically, there's truth to this. But a bit of perspective. While yes, the Russian interference with the US electoral process, it was tantamount to peeing in a lake and them claiming it rose the water level. Technically true, but the impact is so trivial as to be academic anyways.

Basically, the Deep State was angry that Trump got elected and shredded a Globalist movement. Fact is, Trump got elected not a person, but as a political weapon against the establishment. And why not, he only gets 4% approval in Washington DC. So by that measure, he's been completely vindicated.

As for me? I don't trust the Russian more than any other nation that has its own interests at heart. But then again, the whole "The Russians, the Russians!!!" movement is just a bunch of media hyped FUD.

 

[alvaroafernandez]

Running ads is not interference.

 

[TJ Hooker]

[quotemsg=21192250,0,2769636]Running ads is not interference.[/quotemsg]
If foreign state sponsored actors, especially sponsored by a state considered at least somewhat hostile are running targeted misinformation campaigns with the goal of influencing voters to vote a particular way, I would call that interference. Again, maybe the effects were ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of things as others have said, but I don't think that changes whether or not it counts as interference.

Edit: added the bits that are in italics.

 

[dudmont]

There have been no allegations of force or fraud committed by Russian actors during the 2016 election. Until there are, I will smile and shake my head when this whole topic is brought up. Information campaigns don't count as force or fraud in my book.

 

[dhayric]

With the midterm elections coming up shortly this is convenient timing. Everyone knows that FB has become an arm of the Democratic party. Keeping up the "Trump is an illegitimate President" narrative is crucial to energizing their base and getting more votes come November.

 

[TJ Hooker]

[quotemsg=21192293,0,1919666]There have been no allegations of force or fraud committed by Russian actors during the 2016 election. Until there are, I will smile and shake my head when this whole topic is brought up. Information campaigns don't count as force or fraud in my book. [/quotemsg]
I'm guessing this is at least part in response to my comment? Who said that "interference" necessarily means "force or fraud"? If you feel that the only things that constitutes electoral interference is if people are physically forced or coerced to vote a certain way, fraudulent votes are cast, or vote results are tampered with then I guess we just have different ideas of what interference means in this context.

 

[dudmont]

[quotemsg=21192326,0,1636679][quotemsg=21192293,0,1919666]There have been no allegations of force or fraud committed by Russian actors during the 2016 election. Until there are, I will smile and shake my head when this whole topic is brought up. Information campaigns don't count as force or fraud in my book. [/quotemsg]
I'm guessing this is at least part in response to my comment? Who said that "interference" necessarily means "force or fraud"? If you feel that the only things that constitutes electoral interference is if people are physically forced or coerced to vote a certain way, fraudulent votes are cast, or vote results are tampered with then I guess we just have different ideas of what interference means in this context.[/quotemsg]

Indeed. I equate what the Russians did with a carnie at a carnival trying to get you to spend time and money on his rigged game. He can say, more or less whatever he wants, I still get to choose whether or not to play.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Fair enough, although I don't think that's a perfect analogy as your choice of whether or not to play the carnival game has no effect on other people, unlike an election. If you were to be forced to play his game based on whether or not he convinced a sufficient amount of other people to play, you might have a different opinion on him trying to attract people using misinformation.

 

[therealduckofdeath]

I don't know if those who use the argument "no one should be stupid enough to believe anything they read on Facebook" say this because they don't understand basic human nature or if they're just being ingenious.
The reason Facebook is such a successful medium to spread false information is because you're not getting that false information from someone anonymous, you're getting it from your personally selected "friends". It is a natural reaction for anyone to trust information if it's given to you by someone you know. The method these organisations, like Cambridge Analytica, get the false information onto your feed is by using the extremely detailed lifestyle preferences of people to braid in the lies. Through seemingly innocent pages like cute dogs, car fans, sports, <insert your favourite pages here>. You then share that to your friends and viola, the ball is rolling to the friends of the friends and so on.

Facebook doing this is nowhere near enough. Facebook and other social media like YouTube, Twitter, Whatsapp needs to be regulated like any other media. Companies owning the services should be held personally responsible for what they allow onto their services. In the US that would be really easy to implement as corporations are already legally considered human beings with human being rights. Responsibilities comes with rights.

 

[ssdpro]

People are right, you shouldn't believe what you read on Facebook. The problem is they use that as a target because many people are rock bottom stupid and believe the dumbest things then vote based on those beliefs. Like that story about the illegal activity in the basement of the pizza place that had no basement. A guy actually went shooting there when they couldn't show him the basement. Dumb. As. Crap.

 

[stdragon]

[quotemsg=21192404,0,746346]Facebook doing this is nowhere near enough. Facebook and other social media like YouTube, Twitter, Whatsapp needs to be regulated like any other media. Companies owning the services should be held personally responsible for what they allow onto their services..[/quotemsg]

You don't fight fascism with more fascism. That's doubling-down on "stupid"!

How about this - How about letting free people with free thoughts make the free determination for what's true for themselves. Oh, but freedom is such an inconvenience, is it not?

I'm against any "ministry of truth" however you wish to obfuscate it.

 

[dudmont]

[quotemsg=21192395,0,1636679]Fair enough, although I don't think that's a perfect analogy as your choice of whether or not to play the carnival game has no effect on other people, unlike an election. If you were to be forced to play his game based on whether or not he convinced a sufficient amount of other people to play, you might have a different opinion on him trying to attract people using misinformation.[/quotemsg]

The key word you used was "forced". It's what I've been discussing all along. No allegations, that I'm aware of, have been made that force, coercion, or fraud were committed during the election by so Russian actors.

 

[dudmont]

[quotemsg=21192404,0,746346]I don't know if those who use the argument "no one should be stupid enough to believe anything they read on Facebook" say this because they don't understand basic human nature or if they're just being ingenious.
The reason Facebook is such a successful medium to spread false information is because you're not getting that false information from someone anonymous, you're getting it from your personally selected "friends". It is a natural reaction for anyone to trust information if it's given to you by someone you know. The method these organisations, like Cambridge Analytica, get the false information onto your feed is by using the extremely detailed lifestyle preferences of people to braid in the lies. Through seemingly innocent pages like cute dogs, car fans, sports, <insert your favourite pages here>. You then share that to your friends and viola, the ball is rolling to the friends of the friends and so on.

Facebook doing this is nowhere near enough. Facebook and other social media like YouTube, Twitter, Whatsapp needs to be regulated like any other media. Companies owning the services should be held personally responsible for what they allow onto their services. In the US that would be really easy to implement as corporations are already legally considered human beings with human being rights. Responsibilities comes with rights.[/quotemsg]

There's a reason I don't use social media and always read everything with a critical eye. Your dad ever use the line on you about what would you do if your friend jumped off a bridge?, in regards to the comment, "well everyone's doing it", or in this case, "well everyone believes it". Group-think is to be avoided.

 

[jpe1701]

If a person went from door to door and depending on what the indications of your political leanings were, presented different views and information than your conservative or liberal neighbor, that person would be called a fraud. Makes no difference who the President is, if you look at whatever source you trust, the posts that I saw from the news were playing everyone against everyone else. Regardless of political views, that's inciting unrest and I guess I just don't understand why they get a pass for that. Just too busy fighting over who is President I guess.

 

[deerhound]

The Russians didn't force me to vote for Trump. Hillary did.

 

[Brian_R170]

[quotemsg=21192281,0,1636679][quotemsg=21192250,0,2769636]Running ads is not interference.[/quotemsg]
If state sponsored actors are running targeted misinformation campaigns with the goal of influencing voters to vote a particular way, I would call that interference. Again, maybe the effects were ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of things as others have said, but I don't think that changes whether or not it counts as interference.[/quotemsg]

Doesn't "sponsored actors are running targeted misinformation campaigns with the goal of influencing voters to vote a particular way" describe nearly every political campaign in US history? Why does it matter whether the actors are sponsored by a state, a party, a lobby, or an individual? It would be ironic if Americans thought election interference was "wrong" when sponsored by a foreign government, even though the US government has [allegedly] interfered in more foreign elections more than any other government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention