Not Again: Facebook Detects Political Interference Ahead of US Midterms

[mapesdhs]

FB cares about political interference? What utter hypocritical b.s. FB is the one that outright censors those with Conservative opinions, works with the German authorities to help have people arrested who don't like the govt's lunatic pro multicultural policies, etc. FB itself is the corrosive force in modern culture, pushing hard for ever more leftism and globalism, driven by MZ's complete disdain for user privacy and basic rights.

 

[Dantte]

@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.

"multiple US intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) have agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election"
TRUE
"in favour of Trump/Republicans"
FALSE

You should have stopped while you were ahead. Agencies have stated there is evidence of Russian interference, but none of these agencies have EVER stated it was in favor of any political party or candidate. This is nothing more that a liberal talking point with no evidence to support.

 

[Dan White]

Ars Technica has a good article on Russian interference https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/from-bitly-to-x-agent-how-gru-hackers-targeted-the-2016-presidential-election/

 

[therealduckofdeath]

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.

No one is taking your personal rights away to lie as much as you like, media companies that are designed to feed a message to the masses can however not work like that, unless people get an easier way to sue the company for its total worth when they spread lies. I'd be all for that as an option. Let's see how long these sites would last then.

 

[therealduckofdeath]

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.

If you don't believe faked news has any effect on you, why are you so worried about it being regulated to oblivion? Faked propaganda has been used long before the jumping off a bridge idiom. In fact, you using that line as some sort of argument ought to make it obvious to you that people do have a habit of falling for things like peer pressure, lies and deception.

 

[stdragon]

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.

No one is taking your personal rights away to lie as much as you like, media companies that are designed to feed a message to the masses can however not work like that, unless people get an easier way to sue the company for its total worth when they spread lies. I'd be all for that as an option. Let's see how long these sites would last then.

The MSM is doing it all the time, lying to the public. They act as though they're some unofficial fourth branch of government (which they're not) passing themselves off as the sole arbiter of truth.

So how did America respond? Well, I'd say pretty well given CNN now ranks behind the Home and Garden channel :lol:

<<Link Removed. Please keep on topic to the article. - Viddyvane >>

 

[therealduckofdeath]

The MSM is doing it all the time, lying to the public. They act as though they're some unofficial fourth branch of government (which they're not) passing themselves off as the sole arbiter of truth.

So how did America respond? Well, I'd say pretty well given CNN now ranks behind the Home and Garden channel :lol:

<<Link Removed. Please keep on topic to the article. - Viddyvane >>

Why am I not surprised your disdain for fact checked news comes from brainwashing media like Breitbart, Russia Today and Infowars?

End of useless discussion.

 

[dudmont]

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.

If you don't believe faked news has any effect on you, why are you so worried about it being regulated to oblivion? Faked propaganda has been used long before the jumping off a bridge idiom. In fact, you using that line as some sort of argument ought to make it obvious to you that people do have a habit of falling for things like peer pressure, lies and deception.

My remarks in this thread have had nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with notion of Russian Interference having any effect or even being/doing anything illegal. They were a gnat buzzing around an elephant in their effectiveness.
I have no problems with people being swayed by lies and half-truths, so long as force isn't involved anywhere in the process. I support people's right to be dumb, so long as you keep your dumb away from me.

 

[ssdpro]

@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.

"multiple US intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) have agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election"
TRUE
"in favour of Trump/Republicans"
FALSE

You should have stopped while you were ahead. Agencies have stated there is evidence of Russian interference, but none of these agencies have EVER stated it was in favor of any political party or candidate. This is nothing more that a liberal talking point with no evidence to support.

And there goes the fake propaganda. Instead of just using all caps to spread lies, I will provide exact text and sources. Two facts, with sources instead of blow hard bull:

1) The Republican led and Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee did release a report on July 3 stating "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

2) Putin Confirmed he wanted Trump to win and took steps to help him. On July 16, 2018 Putin was asked "President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" Putin responded "Yes I did, Yes I did."

Source (Chairman Burr's website): https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Source (Whitehouse.gov):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/
.

 

[jimmysmitty]

@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.

When has the CIA ever been known to tell the truth? Their entire agenda is to mess with other countries. In fact they have been known to lie about many things. Remember the WMDs they stated were in Iraq? Back then everyone said the CIA were full of crap. Now? Now they tell the truth, mainly because they agree with a certain narrative that they most likely concocted.

The FBI has been shown to fail multiple times and has shown plenty of bias.

I really do not understand people now "trusting" these intelligence agencies that before were always treated the opposite. How many movies and TV shows put them in a bad light?

I would bet that there was more interference inside the US than there ever was from Russia or any other country. Look at it this way. When Hillary was set to win per the "honest" polls and Trump uttered any sort of election rigging everyone said there is no interference, no rigging and if Hillary wins she wins let it go. Even Hillary did.

Then come election night things look good to start then BAM. Out of far left field like a linebacker hitting a soccer player at full force Trump starts to win and then does. All of the sudden there was hacking. There was some possible interference. And even Hillary jumped on and said it after saying if she won Trump should just accept it.

So when it was a certainty that Trump wasn't going to loose: No interference was ever considered.

Once he won: Well obviously the election was hacked

Facebook is a stupid product for stupid people. People gain "friends" on it and feel as if they are important. Its a tool that will slowly die off eventually and be as remembered as MySpace.

 

[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.

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.

I was talking about something entirely different when I said "forced". Bringing your analogy back to reality, the carnie is the entity trying to manipulate your opinion of the election. Playing the carnie's game is analogous to voting how the would-be manipulator wants you to vote. In my continued analogy, being forced to play the game if enough other people decide to play is analogous to how everyone is 'forced' to have the same president if enough people vote for them, regardless of how you as an individual voted. My point being that although the individual may consider himself too savvy to be fooled by the manipulator, they might still care about the actions of the manipulator because the outcome of those actions may still end up affecting the individual.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Spoiler

@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.

"multiple US intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) have agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election"
TRUE
"in favour of Trump/Republicans"
FALSE

You should have stopped while you were ahead. Agencies have stated there is evidence of Russian interference, but none of these agencies have EVER stated it was in favor of any political party or candidate. This is nothing more that a liberal talking point with no evidence to support.

FBI:http://web.archive.org/web/20161217014318/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/white-house-suggests-putin-involved-us-hacking-44231311

CIA:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.a987f8a7aa25

Although I think @ssdpro's post sums it up the most succinctly.

 

[dudmont]

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.

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.

I was talking about something entirely different when I said "forced". Bringing your analogy back to reality, the carnie is the entity trying to manipulate your opinion of the election. Playing the carnie's game is analogous to voting how the would-be manipulator wants you to vote. In my continued analogy, being forced to play the game if enough other people decide to play is analogous to how everyone is 'forced' to have the same president if enough people vote for them, regardless of how you as an individual voted. My point being that although the individual may consider himself too savvy to be fooled by the manipulator, they might still care about the actions of the manipulator because the outcome of those actions may still end up affecting the individual.

That is a fair point. But my simple reply is that all indicators are that the attempts to interfere, by the Russians, had no tangible impact.
I'd like to expound, briefly, on the very notion that any third party country really could do anything serious to affect an election. I think the effort and resources required to do have any serious impact would be sufficiently large, that the attempt would become overwhelmingly obvious, and thus, self-defeating.

 

[Raymond_92]

What a heaping pile of bullshit.

How pathetic is the democratic party that Facebook ADs are the pinnacle of their "Russian Interference".

Just accept that you lost, this whole spiel is making Facebook, the media, and the Democratic Party look [dumb].

<< Please refrain from using ad homenim phrases. - Viddyvane >>

 

[turkey3_scratch]

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.

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.

90% of arguments are arguments of semantics deep down.

 

[Raymond_92]

The only real election interference was the Democratic Party rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders.

There's also the fact that the entire DNC, not to mention the FBI and CIA (looking at Agents Strozk and Paige whom directly believed themselves to be the ones who control elections quote "We'll stop him" and "We have insurance policies") are rooted in Democratic Corruption.

The democratic party hates America and is using the Federal Government to spy on candidates who DARED succeed in the election rigged by democrats.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

If the left wants to convince anyone they are in favor of honest election results, they need to push for voter id and registration roll cleanup, an actual, tangible goal. Chasing every avenue in search of a way to police free speech is a fool's errand and the goal of fascist, tyrannical dictatorships, that need to control what people see and hear to remain relevant.

Even if Facebook ads are a tool employed by foreign powers during US elections, the actual impact is very open to debate.

Instead of pulling or de-ranking ads or headlines under the guise of policing fake news or preventing interfering, Facebook should design a very clear, unambiguous method of marking such fake content and just leave it be. Of course, it's not hard to imagine Facebook doesn't want anybody to actually know which ads and headlines are being thrown into the trash as this might reveal a bias.

Clinton and her allies raised over a billion dollars, yet we're told she lost the election due to 100 grand worth of Facebook ads and other mysterious Russian activity! If Democrats are this bad at getting value for money, let them keep losing.

Since the election results are the product of the counted votes cast, I only see two distinct possibilities. Russians either coerced US citizens to vote a particular way or tampered with the actual voting itself. Nobody is actually proving the case for either option (probably because they can't), and the Democrats seem to be disinterested in taking measures to prevent the second option.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Two facts, with sources instead of blow hard bull:

1) The Republican led and Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee did release a report on July 3 stating "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

2) Putin Confirmed he wanted Trump to win and took steps to help him. On July 16, 2018 Putin was asked "President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" Putin responded "Yes I did, Yes I did."

Source (Chairman Burr's website): https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Source (Whitehouse.gov):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/
.

1) It's pretty clear that both before and since the election, the Republican party has had mixed feelings toward Trump. Furthermore, by what means does the Senate Intelligence Committee acquire it's information? Finally, between her own actions and those of her husband, Hillary has done enough damage to her own brand that I suspect the Russians couldn't do any better.

2) What you said may have been factually correct, but when quoted fully, it sounds more like Putin was speaking rhetorically than admitting to potential criminal activity. This has the same look of incomplete divulging of facts that we've been getting from the media, meant to cause an incorrect assumption on the part of the reader.

Q President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.

Even if Putin is openly admitting to this, so what?

Before this question, he said,

We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries. We should be guided by facts. Can you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion? This is utter nonsense.

It is to be expected that foreign powers will attempt to influence elections. What was the previous administration doing to protect the people it is sworn to protect? This includes protecting the Republican nominee for president, not just everyone else.

 

[parkerygc8]

Well they hacked the dnc in 16, what this time? seems more dems.

 

[Cheeno76]

What a surprise. They're already working the spin machine to try and find something to blame when this so-called 'blue wave' in November doesn't pan out. Clearly, it must be 'Russian influence and interference' to make us not want to vote for the Democrat party, right? Not actual policy, results, etc.

 

[Cheeno76]

Oh, and one more thing. Who's more naive? The person that reads Facebook for news, or people that believe everything that the MSM tells them?

 

[Rick Andersen]

facebook is far more dangerous than the 'russians'.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

@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.

Sadly...

[sarcasm]
We all know the FBI, and especially the CIA (and all the other alphabet soups) have NEVER said or done anything for political reasons. Right?
[/sarcasm]

When our intelligence agencies have participated in black-ops that have directly interfered and influenced politics in the past, it makes it hard to believe that they're not trying to redirect eyes from their own activities.

I don't trust what comes out of FB HQ as Zuk and company are very left wing liberal and only want discussions that favor those beliefs. AND I certainly don't believe everything on FB either.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

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.

If you don't believe faked news has any effect on you, why are you so worried about it being regulated to oblivion? Faked propaganda has been used long before the jumping off a bridge idiom. In fact, you using that line as some sort of argument ought to make it obvious to you that people do have a habit of falling for things like peer pressure, lies and deception.

BECAUSE its too easy to call news you dislike, or fear, fake news... it's easy to call facts that contradict your point of view as fake. It happens every day, everywhere.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

@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.

"multiple US intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI) have agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election"
TRUE
"in favour of Trump/Republicans"
FALSE

You should have stopped while you were ahead. Agencies have stated there is evidence of Russian interference, but none of these agencies have EVER stated it was in favor of any political party or candidate. This is nothing more that a liberal talking point with no evidence to support.

And there goes the fake propaganda. Instead of just using all caps to spread lies, I will provide exact text and sources. Two facts, with sources instead of blow hard bull:

1) The Republican led and Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee did release a report on July 3 stating "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

2) Putin Confirmed he wanted Trump to win and took steps to help him. On July 16, 2018 Putin was asked "President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" Putin responded "Yes I did, Yes I did."

Source (Chairman Burr's website): https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf

Source (Whitehouse.gov):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-putin-russian-federation-joint-press-conference/
.

Hillary needed ZERO help in condemning her own chances at the presidency... the MSM was proud of her blatant bigotry and elitism. ... and loved to slam Trump every chance they got. (and they still do.)