• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WPost:Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Representatives of Facebook told congressional investigators Wednesday that it has discovered it sold ads during the U.S. presidential election to a shadowy Russian company seeking to target voters, according to several people familiar with the company's findings.

Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian ”troll farm" with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said.

A small portion of the ads, which began in the summer of 2015, directly named Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, the people said. Most of the ads focused on pumping politically divisive issues such as gun rights and immigration fears, as well as gay rights and racial discrimination.

The acknowledgment by Facebook comes as congressional investigators and special counsel Robert Mueller are probing Russian interference in the U.S. election, including allegations that the Kremlin may have coordinated with the Trump campaign.

The U.S. intelligence community concluded in January that Russia had interfered in the U.S. election to help elect Trump, including by using paid social media trolls to spread fake news intended to influence public opinion.

Facebook discovered the Russian connection as part of an investigation that began this spring looking at purchasers of politically-motivated ads, according to people familiar with the inquiry. It found that 3,300 ads had digital footprints that led to the Russian company.

Facebook teams then discovered 470 suspicious and likely fraudulent Facebook accounts and pages that it believes operated out of Russia, had links to the company and were involved in promoting the ads.

A Facebook official said ”there is evidence that some of the accounts are linked to a troll farm in St. Petersburg, referred to as the Internet Research Agency, though we have no way to independently confirm." The official declined to release any of the ads it traced to Russian companies or entities.

”Our data policy and federal law limit our ability to share user data and content, so we won't be releasing any ads," the official said. The official added that the ads ”were directed at people on Facebook who had expressed interest in subjects explored on those pages, such as LGBT community, black social issues, the Second Amendment, and immigration."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f01fd2-931e-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html
 
HowK5AK.gif
 
If you're not a fan of any political advertising then OK. But I can't think of a logical, sensible argument that means it's OK for the Koch brothers to spend millions of targeted ads but it's not OK for the Kremlin to. None of them have your best interests in mind. The geographic distinction between the two seems a bit arbitrary.
 

Geist-

Member
where's that ignorant zuck quote again about how not-influencial facebook was politically in 2016?
Zuckerberg first emphasized that “of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic,” and that it was “extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of the election in one direction or the other.” Immediately following the election, Zuckerberg described the idea that fake news on Facebook may have influenced the results as a “crazy idea.”
.
 
I'm zero shocked. If I were running the Russian propaganda campaign I would also use Facebook.

The fake news they were promoting was probably really cheap to run too, because they were microtargeting people likely to share them.

Zuckerberg first emphasized that ”of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic," and that it was ”extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of the election in one direction or the other." Immediately following the election, Zuckerberg described the idea that fake news on Facebook may have influenced the results as a ”crazy idea."

Lol. It's not about how many pieces of content are fake; it's how much they spread. Even 10 fake news stories could've swayed some opinions if tens of millions of people saw them.
 

riotous

Banned
If you're not a fan of any political advertising then OK. But I can't think of a logical, sensible argument that means it's OK for the Koch brothers to spend millions of targeted ads but it's not OK for the Kremlin to. None of them have your best interests in mind. The geographic distinction between the two seems a bit arbitrary.

Koch's are Americans; you have a right to express yourself which includes campaigning.

I don't see how you can claim the distinction is arbitrary; Americans with rights vs. foreigners without them.
 

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-update/

An Update On Information Operations On Facebook

There have been a lot of questions since the 2016 US election about Russian interference in the electoral process. In April we published a white paper that outlined our understanding of organized attempts to misuse our platform. One question that has emerged is whether there's a connection between the Russian efforts and ads purchased on Facebook. These are serious claims and we've been reviewing a range of activity on our platform to help understand what happened.

In reviewing the ads buys, we have found approximately $100,000 in ad spending from June of 2015 to May of 2017 — associated with roughly 3,000 ads — that was connected to about 470 inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies. Our analysis suggests these accounts and Pages were affiliated with one another and likely operated out of Russia.

We don't allow inauthentic accounts on Facebook, and as a result, we have since shut down the accounts and Pages we identified that were still active.

The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn't specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate.
Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.
About one-quarter of these ads were geographically targeted, and of those, more ran in 2015 than 2016.
The behavior displayed by these accounts to amplify divisive messages was consistent with the techniques mentioned in the white paper we released in April about information operations.
In this latest review, we also looked for ads that might have originated in Russia — even those with very weak signals of a connection and not associated with any known organized effort. This was a broad search, including, for instance, ads bought from accounts with US IP addresses but with the language set to Russian — even though they didn't necessarily violate any policy or law. In this part of our review, we found approximately $50,000 in potentially politically related ad spending on roughly 2,200 ads.

We have shared our findings with US authorities investigating these issues, and we will continue to work with them as necessary.
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
The official added that the ads “were directed at people on Facebook who had expressed interest in subjects explored on those pages, such as LGBT community, black social issues, the Second Amendment, and immigration.”

Sounds about right

How long till this connects to Cambridge Analytica?

Hopefully people in the know have made those connections already. I think Mercer is the number 1 "man behind the curtains" that I'd like to see implicated. That New Yorker profile on him gave me the creeps big time.

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/...e-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency/amp
 

Eidan

Member
Hahaha, Zuckerberg thinks he'll make it out of a Democratic primary debate with this hanging around his neck? Good luck.
 
Koch's are Americans; you have a right to express yourself which includes campaigning.

I don't see how you can claim the distinction is arbitrary; Americans with rights vs. foreigners without them.

I don't see why that makes any difference to the fucker getting shafted.

The underlying assumption here is that targeted Facebook adverts make people more likely to vote for someone that they would not vote for without the ad. If this isn't true, then it really doesn't matter who's paying for what. If you think this is a bad thing, then fine. If you think that's is a perfectly good thing to do - to effectively spend money in exchange for votes - then it seems a bit weird to draw the line and say that only Americans can buy votes. This is especially the case in a (de facto) 2-person election like the US Presidency.
 
Facebook "discovered" some time later... Uh huh.

I actually believe this, to an extent. Facebook's ad platform is massive, and it's self-service. Most of the approvals and placements are automatic. They probably were not expecting their platform to be used that way.

I buy $1000s in ads from Facebook a month, so i could actually answer some questions on how that whole side works, if anyone's interested. I also wrote a whole thing a few months ago on how Facebook wasn't doing enough to fight fake news or further Russian (or other) intrusions here
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't see why that makes any difference to the fucker getting shafted.

The underlying assumption here is that targeted Facebook adverts make people more likely to vote for someone that they would not vote for without the ad. If this isn't true, then it really doesn't matter who's paying for what. If you think this is a bad thing, then fine. If you think that's is a perfectly good thing to do - to effectively spend money in exchange for votes - then it seems a bit weird to draw the line and say that only Americans can buy votes. This is especially the case in a (de facto) 2-person election like the US Presidency.

A very wealthy American citizen is still more likely to be concerned with the well-being of America than a very wealthy Russian citizen. Not necessarily other Americans per se, but in the continuing existence of the American state and American institutions.
 

teiresias

Member
Good luck with that Presidential bid Zuckerberg - and in a Dem primary at that. You sold this country for some ad revenue you scum.
 

RDreamer

Member
I actually believe this, to an extent. Facebook's ad platform is massive, and it's self-service. Most of the approvals and placements are automatic. They probably were not expecting their platform to be used that way.

I buy $1000s in ads from Facebook a month, so i could actually answer some questions on how that whole side works, if anyone's interested. I also wrote a whole thing a few months ago on how Facebook wasn't doing enough to fight fake news or further Russian (or other) intrusions here

Yeah I do Facebook advertising, and I'd be astonished if this is all Russia bought. Because of the self service nature and how easy Facebook tries to make it for smaller advertisers to get their foot in the door it's probably insanely easily exploitable. A lot of their ad approval is automated and if someone is looking at it I don't even really think it's someone in this country at all.

It'd be really fucking easy for other countries or operatives to spread a chunk of money really thin into thousands of accounts and push ads without really being that noticed. Maybe a couple get thrown out or noticed but then you just push that money into another fake account.
 

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
I bet even Zuck's prep for office is a Russian-backed scheme. Zuck doesn't realize he's just dancing in the palm of Putin's hand.
 
Good luck with that Presidential bid Zuckerberg - and in a Dem primary at that. You sold this country for some ad revenue you scum.
The amount of shady shit that would turn up about him will have him rethink why he ever decided to run. Zuck better have a good hard look at what has happened to Trump.
 

cdyhybrid

Member
I actually believe this, to an extent. Facebook's ad platform is massive, and it's self-service. Most of the approvals and placements are automatic. They probably were not expecting their platform to be used that way.

I buy $1000s in ads from Facebook a month, so i could actually answer some questions on how that whole side works, if anyone's interested. I also wrote a whole thing a few months ago on how Facebook wasn't doing enough to fight fake news or further Russian (or other) intrusions here
I think it's reasonable to believe he didn't know about this specifically.

But that also means it's irresponsible to state unequivocally that stuff like this isn't happening on your network when you don't actually have the data to support it.
 

riotous

Banned
I don't see why that makes any difference to the fucker getting shafted.

Eliminating foreign interference is the logic; which is a pretty sound concept in general.

There is no motivation to protect individual Americans from being shafted when allowing Americans to spend money on political ads; Americans have the right to shaft other Americans politically.

Neither scenario has anything to do with an individuals opinion that one candidate or policy might shaft them.
 

RulkezX

Member
I don't see why that makes any difference to the fucker getting shafted.

The underlying assumption here is that targeted Facebook adverts make people more likely to vote for someone that they would not vote for without the ad. If this isn't true, then it really doesn't matter who's paying for what. If you think this is a bad thing, then fine. If you think that's is a perfectly good thing to do - to effectively spend money in exchange for votes - then it seems a bit weird to draw the line and say that only Americans can buy votes. This is especially the case in a (de facto) 2-person election like the US Presidency.


I'd have liked to have seen your opinion on this sort of thing during the indy referendum.

Would you have been fine with day Spanish organisations covertly campaigning for remain ?
 

Daedardus

Member
To be honest, do they check all ads by hand? I'd assume that given the huge amount of ads they have, they have an automated system in place that checks if something doesn't contains nudity or gorey stuff but mostly allows things through. I doubt Facebook was facilitating Russian propaganda on purpose, the blame mostly come from that there's no real system in place that protects against this sort stuff, but I can understand such a thing would be hard for an automated system.
 

hoos30

Member
I don't see why that makes any difference to the fucker getting shafted.

The underlying assumption here is that targeted Facebook adverts make people more likely to vote for someone that they would not vote for without the ad. If this isn't true, then it really doesn't matter who's paying for what. If you think this is a bad thing, then fine. If you think that's is a perfectly good thing to do - to effectively spend money in exchange for votes - then it seems a bit weird to draw the line and say that only Americans can buy votes. This is especially the case in a (de facto) 2-person election like the US Presidency.

The difference is really basic. This is bad enough as it is; don't overthink it.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
You can create a massive billion dollar social media empire but still be a fucking dumbass, ignorent, or just greedy.
 
If you're not a fan of any political advertising then OK. But I can't think of a logical, sensible argument that means it's OK for the Koch brothers to spend millions of targeted ads but it's not OK for the Kremlin to. None of them have your best interests in mind. The geographic distinction between the two seems a bit arbitrary.

there's actually a huge gulf of vast differences and consequences between the two as far as geopolitical distinctions go
 
So he basically created a platform that he refuses to regulate. It's a bubble of racism, fake news and propoganda. This guy wants to run as a democrat too. I hope he gets fucked up in the primary for helping Trump in 2016.
 
I think it's reasonable to believe he didn't know about this specifically.

But that also means it's irresponsible to state unequivocally that stuff like this isn't happening on your network when you don't actually have the data to support it.

It's very irresponsible.

This might be a bold claim, but I do believe that the Facebook portion of the Fake News campaign is one of the major reasons Russia was successful.

All they needed to do was sway a 70,000 people in MI, PA and WI... and they did. Not hard to believe that gems like "Pope Francis endorses Donald Trump," and multiple stories of how Hillary was gonna shed her human skin and reveal she's a lizard would have an effect.

People live on Facebook now.

How long till this connects to Cambridge Analytica?

Almost certainly. I hope they allow people to look into these Ad accounts, campaigns and how they operated. I bet you could find common links in the Audiences they targeted, the customer data they uploaded, etc.
 
Top Bottom