Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
lyria

Russian firm tied to pro-Kremlin propaganda advertised on Facebook dur

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

moocow

Um no, not really. The only story here is that a Russian firm bought ads on facebook that named both of the Presidential candidates. The 800-Pound gorilla is that there's no evidence in this story connecting Trump or people tied to trump to this firm. Yes if there's evidence that can show proof of funds going directly from Trump or Trump officials to this firm, that would be a smoking gun, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

This is just more of the same BS guilt by association the media has been peddling since the election. There's no evidence, just accusations.

 

Once again, I go back to the fact that no one said a damn thing when the Obama Administration interfered in the Israeli election.

I'll go one step further: How about when the Obama campaign turned off any credit card checking on their donation page, and WILLINGLY accepted donations from FOREIGN SOURCES!

 

And what about the Bill Clinton campaign and the Chinese (or was that Al Gore, I don't remember).

 

Or how about Teddy Kennedy and the Russians?

 

There's supposed to be some big news about Russians meddling in our elections? Was there any actual hacking or changing of votes due to the Russians? Did they directly, or somehow willingly gave money to a campaign? No? Then there's no story!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz

I'll go one step further: How about when the Obama campaign turned off any credit card checking on their donation page, and WILLINGLY accepted donations from FOREIGN SOURCES!. . .

Who could forget? :P

 

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

 

By Matthew Mosk

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

 

Excerpt:

 

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

 

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

 

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

 

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

 

*snip*

 

The Rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Isn't it expected?

 

We interfere with elections all over the world to try to influence the outcome towards the candidate we prefer.

 

Russia has been doing the same for just as long.

 

Does this really come as a surprise? I don't think so.

 

The real story here isn't that Russia put out propaganda to influence the election, no, the real story is that they supported Clinton and not Trump.

I have been saying this since the beginning of the whole "OMG, the Russians did XXXXX, the election is invalid, everbody pee your pants" BS started.

 

My question has been "so what?" They do it. We do it. That is just part of the global environment we live. Why is it ONLY an issue for this election?

 

I also always thought that if any concerted effort was being made, it was on behalf of the Democrats because they share ideology with (thinly veiled) communist/authoritarians and they are just plain wimps. Besides, they had already bought the Clinton crime family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

I have been saying this since the beginning of the whole "OMG, the Russians did XXXXX, the election is invalid, everbody pee your pants" BS started.

 

My question has been "so what?" They do it. We do it. That is just part of the global environment we live. Why is it ONLY an issue for this election?

 

I also always thought that if any concerted effort was being made, it was on behalf of the Democrats because they share ideology with (thinly veiled) communist/authoritarians and they are just plain wimps. Besides, they had already bought the Clinton crime family.

Yep. Right from the onset of their phony "outrage", many people pointed out all the bullsh!t the Dems were spewing from their lying pieholes.

 

As for the Russians, Clinton is a sister in arms with them. There is no doubt whatsoever that Putin would have preferred her seeing as how he already got that outrageous uranium deal out of her. He could play her like a fiddle and get virtually anything he wanted if she were POTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

I saw plenty anti-Hillary crap on FB during the election. I don't even like her and it got way too much for me, to the point where I had to block people and so called 'news' sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

I can't argue with that! The collective intelligence of my fellow Americans has had me concerned for my entire life. And just when I think it's hit a low point, I read about something else that indicates that our collective stupidity has fallen still.

Your entire life? Really?

 

Drama queen much?

 

At least your "fellow Americans" weren't dumb enough to hire Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Your entire life? Really?

 

Drama queen much?

 

At least your "fellow Americans" weren't dumb enough to hire Hillary.

 

Pretty much, yes. In school, I thought my classmates (with some exception) were as dumb as a box of rocks and incurious to boot. On top of that, they liked to savage those who were showing intelligence in school. I haven't seen improvement as time goes on, and every once in a while I read a study that shows, for example, an astounding lack of basic civics knowledge among adults. So, yeah.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

I saw plenty anti-Hillary crap on FB during the election. I don't even like her and it got way too much for me, to the point where I had to block people and so called 'news' sites.

 

I saw a bunch of political stuff from friends (some of which I eventually unfollowed because it was too much), but advertising? Perhaps I just ignore it so thoroughly that none of it stuck, but I don't recall seeing a lot of political ads. Facebook says these ads were targeted geographically, so maybe that's why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
De Oppresso Liber

Pretty much, yes. In school, I thought my classmates (with some exception) were as dumb as a box of rocks and incurious to boot. On top of that, they liked to savage those who were showing intelligence in school. I haven't seen improvement as time goes on, and every once in a while I read a study that shows, for example, an astounding lack of basic civics knowledge among adults. So, yeah.

 

 

Sheesh, where did you go to school, Bedrock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

I saw plenty anti-Hillary crap on FB during the election. I don't even like her and it got way too much for me, to the point where I had to block people and so called 'news' sites.

 

Well to be fair she brought a LOT of negative publicity upon herself based on actions she took prior to and during the campaign, so it would be natural for it to get air-play on social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Pretty much, yes. In school, I thought my classmates (with some exception) were as dumb as a box of rocks and incurious to boot. On top of that, they liked to savage those who were showing intelligence in school. I haven't seen improvement as time goes on, and every once in a while I read a study that shows, for example, an astounding lack of basic civics knowledge among adults. So, yeah.

 

Yeah, I'd take exception to your superior attitude and condescension if I were them, too. In high school? You're damn straight your elitism would be called out by some including your truly. I certainly hope you're not referring to college classmates being dumber than a box of rocks...

 

I'm sure your school was no different than any other, unless you think it somehow escaped the normal distribution of intelligence in a large sample of high school students... You blame kids for not knowing civics when we don't insist on teaching it until maybe they are seniors in high school? Hey, I think you've really hit on something there!!!

 

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that non-interest in civics means someone isn't intelligent - or the entire population for that matter. But I can see how someone like you immersed in politics and government policy would think that. You're not biased at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Yeah, I'd take exception to your superior attitude and condescension if I were them, too. In high school? You're damn straight your elitism would be called out by some including your truly. I certainly hope you're not referring to college classmates being dumber than a box of rocks...

 

I'm sure your school was no different than any other, unless you think it somehow escaped the normal distribution of intelligence in a large sample of high school students... You blame kids for not knowing civics when we don't insist on teaching it until maybe they are seniors in high school? Hey, I think you've really hit on something there!!!

 

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that non-interest in civics means someone isn't intelligent - or the entire population for that matter. But I can see how someone like you immersed in politics and government policy would think that. You're not biased at all.

 

<shrug> It was a mutual dislike. I was grateful to get out of there, and I'm sure they're just as happy I never showed for a reunion. BTW, did they really not teach civics in your school until high school? I find that astounding. It was taught in mine since early elementary, but it was called "social studies" and lumped in with things like geography. I clearly recall teachers using the then-current election of 1984 (when I was in elementary school) to discuss the three branches of government, the electoral college, and the mechanics of voting, complete with a dummy machine to cast fake votes school-wide (Reagan won). But just because something was taught doesn't mean that the students learned or retained that knowledge.

 

Lacking basic knowledge of civics does not necessarily mean that one isn't intelligent, but it DOES mean that one is ignorant. Perhaps my statement would have been better phrased in terms of profound ignorance and lack of curiosity rather than raw intelligence. In many ways, that's worse. Colloquially, the two are conflated but they actually mean different things. And in both cases, I do not think it bodes well for the future of America. Further, I see a lack of knowledge of basic civics as a failure of one's duty to be an informed voter.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Russia-linked operatives used fake Facebook accounts to promote anti-refugee event in Idaho

Russia’s propaganda machine used fake Facebook users to plan and promote a protest targeting an Idaho city facing false claims of Syrian refugees raping a child, according to a report.

 

The social media giant pulled “several promoted events” aimed at spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric during the presidential election. Secured Borders organized one such protest, “Citizens before refugees,” which was slated for Aug. 27, 2016, in Twin Falls, the Daily Beast reported Monday.

 

Secured Borders has since been outed as a Russian front, according to the BBC.

 

The Times-News reported over the summer that no Syrian refugees had been settled in Twin Falls through the state's refugee program, citing the Idaho Office for Refugees. Breitbart and InfoWars were among the pro-Trump outlets that pushed the narrative.

 

Facebook officials said last week that Russian-linked operatives used about 470 “inauthentic accounts” to spend $100,000 on advertising.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/world/russian-front-fake-facebooks-promote-anti-refugee-event-article-1.3489163

Edited by Ladybird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

<shrug> It was a mutual dislike. I was grateful to get out of there, and I'm sure they're just as happy I never showed for a reunion. BTW, did they really not teach civics in your school until high school? I find that astounding. It was taught in mine since early elementary, but it was called "social studies" and lumped in with things like geography. I clearly recall teachers using the then-current election of 1984 (when I was in elementary school) to discuss the three branches of government, the electoral college, and the mechanics of voting, complete with a dummy machine to cast fake votes school-wide (Reagan won). But just because something was taught doesn't mean that the students learned or retained that knowledge.

 

Lacking basic knowledge of civics does not necessarily mean that one isn't intelligent, but it DOES mean that one is ignorant. Perhaps my statement would have been better phrased in terms of profound ignorance and lack of curiosity rather than raw intelligence. In many ways, that's worse. Colloquially, the two are conflated but they actually mean different things. And in both cases, I do not think it bodes well for the future of America. Further, I see a lack of knowledge of basic civics as a failure of one's duty to be an informed voter.

 

Yes, we had social studies all through elementary school. THEN we had the class called "Civics" and required for senior year.

 

I agree that we owe it to ourselves to learn about how our government properly functions. I just wish the people IN government would do the same. The media too, for that matter (the popular vote schtick being trotted out is so embarrassing). In that sense, people wouldn't have to be so vigilant in their involvement in politics but these days it seems the civilian's job is to make sure the elected do their jobs. I mean, you can't blame people for just wanting to live their lives away from that crazy world, can you? You can see how maddening and ridiculous it can be, right? And you call them stupid and ignorant for wanting no part of that??? I think you misunderestimate [sic] them and their motivations and they aren't as dumb and ignorant as you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Yes, we had social studies all through elementary school. THEN we had the class called "Civics" and required for senior year.

 

I agree that we owe it to ourselves to learn about how our government properly functions. I just wish the people IN government would do the same. The media too, for that matter (the popular vote schtick being trotted out is so embarrassing).

 

I'm glad to hear your introduction to civics occurred earlier than senior year, even if it wasn't called out as that.

 

In that there is ignorance in government and media, we agree. Ignorance is hardly limited to "man on the street", unfortunately.

 

In that sense, people wouldn't have to be so vigilant in their involvement in politics but these days it seems the civilian's job is to make sure the elected do their jobs. I mean, you can't blame people for just wanting to live their lives away from that crazy world, can you? You can see how maddening and ridiculous it can be, right? And you call them stupid and ignorant for wanting no part of that??? I think you misunderestimate [sic] them and their motivations and they aren't as dumb and ignorant as you think.

 

The way our republic works, voters must be both vigilant and knowledgeable, at least to a basic functional level. If someone is unwilling to do this, they shouldn't be participating in the republic by voting (and since I believe this participation is part of our American duty, they're failing in that.) If someone is getting their news only from Facebook - or believing the Facebook links without doing some basic checking - then they are not being vigilant and remaining ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

I'm glad to hear your introduction to civics occurred earlier than senior year, even if it wasn't called out as that.

 

In that there is ignorance in government and media, we agree. Ignorance is hardly limited to "man on the street", unfortunately.

 

APPC-civics-survey-2017-govt-branches-v5.png

 

 

The way our republic works, voters must be both vigilant and knowledgeable, at least to a basic functional level.

 

Must? Why? Sounds like a requirement vs. a "nice to have". I guess that was the point of "public school".

 

civics-or-basic-math.jpg

 

If someone is unwilling to do this, they shouldn't be participating in the republic by voting (and since I believe this participation is part of our American duty, they're failing in that.)

 

You can't stop them and how would you even if you wanted to? How do you enforce this? This is a slippery slope you're going down here. We would most likely be into a Constitutional Amendment on voting rights here, wouldn't you agree?

 

If someone is getting their news only from Facebook - or believing the Facebook links without doing some basic checking - then they are not being vigilant and remaining ignorant.

 

People can be ignorant and misinformed despite their use - or non-use - of Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wag-a-Muffin (D)

I could not agree more. Both Facebook and Facebook users/readers were naive.

Facebook is not naive. (Readers, yes, owner, no.)

 

Zuckerman is a hard core progressive leftist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Facebook is not naive. (Readers, yes, owner, no.)

 

Zuckerman is a hard core progressive leftist.

 

That's not mutually exclusive! I think Zuckerman is both naive and an ivory tower type liberal. Plus, Facebook is now big enough that management is more than just Zuckerman. Whoever was in charge of advertising screwed the pooch on this one, and it sounds like it was likely out of naivete.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

APPC-civics-survey-2017-govt-branches-v5.png

 

Yeah, exactly what I mean. How can only 26% know all three branches? It's not like this is difficult material! They should have picked up this fact through their schooling, through just simply being alive and aware in this country! It shows profound ignorance of our government is rampant.

 

Must? Why? Sounds like a requirement vs. a "nice to have". I guess that was the point of "public school".

 

You can't stop them and how would you even if you wanted to? How do you enforce this? This is a slippery slope you're going down here. We would most likely be into a Constitutional Amendment on voting rights here, wouldn't you agree?

 

Let's be clear on this. I would 100% OPPOSE any sort of law that demands that voters pass a civics test or something. That is disenfranchisement, and I'm a stickler on that score. That doesn't change the civic DUTY that voters have to be informed. They have the right to vote regardless. Failure to do this duty impacts the way our republic works. We are counting on informed voters being vigilant and removing politicians from office who do not properly represent us either through the processes in place for recall, impeachment, etc (if it's bad enough to meet those criteria) or in simply not being re-elected. This is an ideal, but it is not something we need to pass laws about. Social pressure should be enough. It isn't - clearly - but it should be. The consequences of passing laws to enforce voter education are severe, as you correctly point out, and I agree that it would violate the Constitution. In this case, the ends would not justify the means.

 

If any given individual wants to opt out of staying informed, they should voluntarily opt themselves out of voting.

 

People can be ignorant and misinformed despite their use - or non-use - of Facebook.

 

Absolutely! The article that started this thread was about Facebook, and I wanted to bring it back to that.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

% of people who can name the

three branches of government

 

I'll take "three branches of government" for $200, Alex.

 

A: What is, "Lobbyists", "Crooked politicians on the take", and "Leftist agenda-driven judges"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

I'll take "three branches of government" for $200, Alex.

 

A: What is, "Lobbyists", "Crooked politicians on the take", and "Leftist agenda-driven judges"?

 

Now that's what I call an informed voter! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

DID JARED KUSHNER’S DATA OPERATION HELP SELECT FACEBOOK TARGETS FOR THE RUSSIANS?

The Russians used social media to rile the electorate. Investigators wonder if they had inside help.

BY CHRIS SMITH

SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 1:08 PM

 

 

The headlines were about Facebook admitting it had sold ad space to Russian groups trying to sway the 2016 presidential campaign. But investigators shrugged: they’d known or assumed for months that Facebook, as well as Twitter and other social-media platforms, were a tool used in the Kremlin’s campaign. “The only thing that’s surprising is that more revelations like this haven’t come out sooner,” said Congressman Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “And I expect that more will.”

 

Mapping the full Russian propaganda effort is important. Yet investigators in the House, Senate, and special counsel Robert Mueller’s office are equally focused on a more explosive question: did any Americans help target the memes and fake news to crucial swing districts and wavering voter demographics? “By Americans, you mean, like, the Trump campaign?” a source close to one of the investigations said with a dark laugh. Indeed: probers are intrigued by the role of Jared Kushner, the now-president’s son-in-law, who eagerly took credit for crafting the Trump campaign’s online efforts in a rare interview right after the 2016 election. “I called somebody who works for one of the technology companies that I work with, and I had them give me a tutorial on how to use Facebook micro-targeting,” Kushner told Steven Bertoni of Forbes. “We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff . . . We basically had to build a $400 million operation with 1,500 people operating in 50 states, in five months to then be taken apart. We started really from scratch.”

 

Kushner’s chat with Forbes has provided a veritable bakery’s worth of investigatory bread crumbs to follow. Brad Parscale, who Kushner hired to run the campaign’s San Antonio-based Internet operation, has agreed to be interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee.

 

Bigger questions, however, revolve around Cambridge Analytica. It is unclear how Kushner first became aware of the data-mining firm, but one of its major investors is billionaire Trump backer Robert Mercer. Mercer was also a principal patron of Breitbart News and Steve Bannon, who was a vice president of Cambridge Analytica until he joined the Trump campaign. “I think the Russians had help,” said Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a California Democrat who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “I’ve always wondered if Cambridge Analytica was part of that.” (Cambridge Analytica did not respond to a request for comment.)

 

Senator Martin Heinrich is leading the charge to update American election laws so that the origins of political ads on social media are at least as transparent as those on TV and in print. Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, is also part of the Senate Intelligence Committee that is tracing Russia’s 2016 tactics. “Paul Manafort made an awful lot of money coming up with a game plan for how Russian interests could be pushed in Western countries and Western elections,” Heinrich said, referring to a mid-2000s proposal Manafort pitched to a Russian oligarch. “Suddenly he finds himself in the middle of this campaign. If there is a person who I think is very sophisticated in this stuff, and runs in pretty dicey circles, that is the place where I would dig.”

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

^ Hahahahahahaha.

 

Of course, not a word about "digital social media efforts" by democrats, perhaps including, oh the Chinese. Unless Hillary had won, in which case we'd be looking at gushing articles by the NYT and Time Mag on their digital prowess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

DID JARED KUSHNER’S DATA OPERATION HELP SELECT FACEBOOK TARGETS FOR THE RUSSIANS?

 

No.

 

Next.

 

(But keep on grasping, T_G, LOL. Maybe someday you'll find something.)

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

No.

 

How do you know this to be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...