It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian social media failure

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
My general issue with the Russian social media trolling:


1. TROLLING
I think foreign involvement sucks, and There can be tools created to meter this. The issue should be a priority to address. However, I doubt few people actually know the law on this. I sure don't. Was their Trolling bad JUST because it was about the election? Or could they have Trolled Star Wars freely?


2. NO REAL IMPACT
The actual reach of these posts might look big. Anyone who has been trained on facebook advertising, or buying social media ads can tell you that 'reach' is a huge term that is built on a lot of data points. If you don't understand this, then any number you hear can be misleading.


NYT / How Russia did it
"The indictment said that Facebook ads for the Florida rallies reached more than 59,000 users and were clicked on by more than 8,300."
There are low level talking heads like Mike Cernovich or Donna Brazile can get 50k views or 'reach' by simply posting. Who do they effect besides their respective choirs?

In order for their reach to convert into any effective result, using their conversion ratio from the paid results as a guide, they would have to have had multiples of organic traffic to the tune of 48 shares for every click to have even an outside chance of materially affecting anything.

That level of virality would have made news in ad circles instantly during the political cycles as every other political ad buyer would have jumped at trying to mimic those result.

That never happened, ergo the social media impact was underwhelming at best, and expensive at least.

4. BUYING ADS IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANY RETURN
Some companies have given up buying social media ads all together because they seem to be all 'bark and no bite"
I have been trained on the ad buying process of Facebook. It's not difficult at all. I have spent my own money as well as client money on targeted demographics a number of times. It's a continual crapshoot, even for the experts.

PROCTOR & GAMBLE TO STOP BUYING FACEBOOK ADS


4. DIDN'T CHANGE THE OUTCOME
I think the claim that these ad buys effected the election is a huge stretch. I believe that claim is irresponsible journalism. I've seen no evidence that this is true. I have seen plenty of evidence that these did little more than grab existing confirmation bias.

The only doofus I know of who fell for it was this guy:

edit on 19-2-2018 by ExVoto because: spehlling

edit on 19-2-2018 by ExVoto because: words bad

edit on 19-2-2018 by ExVoto because: headline

edit on 19-2-2018 by ExVoto because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

I agree. The silly notion that this activity is considered “meddling”, or a threat to democracy, is false.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

Here's the spookiest thing of all.

Inherent in the premise that foreign political speech is damaging and should be banned is the assumption that the domestic populous is too stupid or ignorant to know any better.

An odd premise for an electorate of the most powerful nation on earth, don't you think?

China not only has the Great Wall, but the Great Firewall.

Seems we are looking to do the same.

Think about that.




edit on 19-2-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

The entire issue is actually about this, I believe.

The DNC never wants to deal with uncontrolled opposition again. Either real or imagined.

They said so themselves:

edit on 19-2-2018 by ExVoto because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExVoto
My general issue with the Russian social media trolling:


1. TROLLING
I think foreign involvement sucks, and There can be tools created to meter this. The issue should be a priority to address. However, I doubt few people actually know the law on this. I sure don't. Was their Trolling bad JUST because it was about the election? Or could they have Trolled Star Wars freely?


2. NO REAL IMPACT
The actual reach of these posts might look big. Anyone who has been trained on facebook advertising, or buying social media ads can tell you that 'reach' is a huge term that is built on a lot of data points. If you don't understand this, then any number you hear can be misleading.


NYT / How Russia did it
"The indictment said that Facebook ads for the Florida rallies reached more than 59,000 users and were clicked on by more than 8,300."
There are low level talking heads like Mike Cernovich or Donna Brazile can get 50k views or 'reach' by simply posting. Who do they effect besides their respective choirs?

In order for their reach to convert into any effective result, using their conversion ratio from the paid results as a guide, they would have to have had multiples of organic traffic to the tune of 48 shares for every click to have even an outside chance of materially affecting anything.

That level of virality would have made news in ad circles instantly during the political cycles as every other political ad buyer would have jumped at trying to mimic those result.

That never happened, ergo the social media impact was underwhelming at best, and expensive at least.

4. BUYING ADS IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANY RETURN
Some companies have given up buying social media ads all together because they seem to be all 'bark and no bite"
I have been trained on the ad buying process of Facebook. It's not difficult at all. I have spent my own money as well as client money on targeted demographics a number of times. It's a continual crapshoot, even for the experts.

PROCTOR & GAMBLE TO STOP BUYING FACEBOOK ADS


4. DIDN'T CHANGE THE OUTCOME
I think the claim that these ad buys effected the election is a huge stretch. I believe that claim is irresponsible journalism. I've seen no evidence that this is true. I have seen plenty of evidence that these did little more than grab existing confirmation bias.

The only doofus I know of who fell for it was this guy:




The website info wars had a story all the Trump followers here on ATS still believe that 3 million illegals voted which is completely FALSE, but yet Trump followers shared it 42 thousand times in like 3 days, and they STILL do!

Complete load of crap, but boy they sure think they are spreading the truth....that is called spreading misinformation, accompanied by ignorance!
OH and I have posted the link plenty of times..from LEGITIMATE web sites!







posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

They have successfully diminished and essentially shut down any "third party" or "alternative party" to control people into either being "democrat" or "republican" by attempting to blame Jill Stein and third party voters of being "Russian Plants/Bots" or influenced by Russian propaganda

which was their goal, shame people into being a democrat



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ExVoto

I agree. The silly notion that this activity is considered “meddling”, or a threat to democracy, is false.



It IS silly, since 56% of the ads were after the election.




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall

Ok, cool

Thanks



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

Sooooo basically the Russians did the same exact thing as HRC's "Correct the Record" team.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

Can't see the video, but I can imagine it adequately supports your point.

Yes, that is what they want...and I doubt many on the right desire anything less for themselves.

But in the case of the left now, by opening Pandora's box with identity politics as their primary strategy, control is hardly what they will get. In fact, one could argue it is what got Trump elected.

The chickens are coming home to roost. We are already seeing the cannibalization of their purported own.

What we have is a full-blow # show now.

They can scream Russians. They can scream racism. But in the end, they will just scream along with the rest of us, when it becomes clear we've irreparably broken the whole damned thing.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




Sooooo basically the Russians did the same exact thing as HRC's "Correct the Record" team.


Except on a much smaller scale.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: loam




Inherent in the premise that foreign political speech is damaging and should be banned is the assumption that the domestic populous is too stupid or ignorant to know any better.


Yep!

That is their argument.

We are so stupid we'll vote for whatever a twitter bot says.




China not only has the Great Wall, but the Great Firewall.


This IS where all this snip is headed.

Two birds one stone.

Buh buy cryptocurrencies as collateral damage, but really is also part of their plan.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: ExVoto

Can't see the video, but I can imagine it adequately supports your point.


Representatives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google have been on Capitol Hill for a grilling on the 2016 election and political propaganda that could have been funded from overseas. Legislators haven’t been satisfied with what they’ve heard, and on Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered a warning:

“You've created these platforms & now they are being misused and you have to be the ones to do something about it or we will.”



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

As obvious to me now, as it was when I wrote this thread back in November 2016.

They are going to try and control what you can read!

And the drums keep beating...



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
So if the Mueller Matter goes on much longer, wouldn't that be election meddling?







posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

Something about this narrative deeply disturbs me.


So someone basically said something about an election. Does it really matter who?

I certainly said plenty about the 2016 election.

I tried to influence potential voters by writing about the candidates. I was biased. I was partisan against different candidates.


So the narrative is that Russia meddled, which they certainly did. Who's to say that my "meddling" didn't influence any voters?


Is this an attack on speech? An attack on opinion?



The US spends countless millions to influence other nations electoral processes.


It's called foreign policy when we do it.





posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ExVoto

Something about this narrative deeply disturbs me.


So someone basically said something about an election. Does it really matter who?

I certainly said plenty about the 2016 election.

I tried to influence potential voters by writing about the candidates. I was biased. I was partisan against different candidates.


So the narrative is that Russia meddled, which they certainly did. Who's to say that my "meddling" didn't influence any voters?


Is this an attack on speech? An attack on opinion?



The US spends countless millions to influence other nations electoral processes.


It's called foreign policy when we do it.






Watch this especially at 4:35, hahaha


edit on 20-2-2018 by ExVoto because: time travel



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ExVoto

HA!

thanks!



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExVoto
“You've created these platforms & now they are being misused and you have to be the ones to do something about it or we will.”


That's the root of it and it should scare everyone Left, Right or otherwise. Anyone not bothered by that has their blinders on. Freedom is fragile.



new topics




 
7

log in

join