Facebook to turn over Russian 2016 election ads to Congress

a reply to: network dude

P.S. advertising or advertisement is abbreviated ad. Not add. So you'd want me to show you an ad. Not an add.
There's only one d in advertise.

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: JinMI

does anyone really care if they had adds on facebook? i dont do facebook, and any websites i go to i never click an add, those are put there for stupid people and those who like viruses. i have never seen any of these russian adds that i am aware of. now if they had anything to do with the email hack and release of hillarys classified emails i believe something should be done but what i don't know. but im sure she would have lost either way, was so much more crap out there on youtube about her showing how evil she was(witch i always sent to all my friends and family when i came across one.) the email scandal was just a kicker imo. and facebook is ran by a communist.

I don't believe it was "ads". It was fabricated articles, presenting themselves as "news", (get it?) And you are the posterchild for what went wrong. The absolute poster child. You distributed the ads (adds) you found on you-tube.
You believed them! You DID believe the fake news! Problems with separating fact from fiction?

Hillary's emails have been gone over hundreds of times, and yet we have around 750 fake Russian accounts on Facebook of which you have no interest. Not to mention that you have poor grammar and spelling which might tend to indicate you didn't win any scholarships yourself. You might want to attend to those who have more information than you. (I said this as nicely as I could muster.)

Develop your thinking skills. People who have them can help you when you listen to them. If you learn that all the stories about Clinton stealing from her own charitable foundation, being the head of a child-molesting ring, and being responsible for multiple deaths, are in fact, all lies. All "fake news".

So tell, me, will you hang your head in shame for being such a sucker and contributing to her railroading and instead electing an incompetent dotard to office?

The "dotard" part is a joke. Someone called him that yesterday, can you guess who?

Dotard: a person, especially an old person, exhibiting a decline in mental faculties; a weak-minded or foolish old person.

You have a nice day. Read a book sometimes instead of watching you-tube videos.

originally posted by: SamBerns
To be honest, I'd on face every single day and never have I ever seen a single pro Trump Russia ad on facebook.

Facebook advertising works on what they call 'Custom Audiences'. You determine your target profile (by uploading a sample of people you are trying to reach or by defining demographic groups) and ads re served only to them. So more than likely, you are not part of the audience they were looking to reach.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

I'm sure it did have something to do with education. It's a known fact that dems have more college educated members than republicans. Can't change facts. Trump was elected by the grass chewing crowd who hang out in bars and drink a lot of beer.

Thanks for being true to your past. This is exactly the kind of attitude I expect from the left, and it will be a large factor in the next elections. College education is wonderful, but it doesn't make you smarter, intelligence is something you have, I know some older guys who didn't finish High school, but could engineer anything needed in any situation, while an average college educated person would be scrambling for ideas from others.

Trump was elected as a large FU to that exact mentality.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

P.S. advertising or advertisement is abbreviated ad. Not add. So you'd want me to show you an ad. Not an add.
There's only one d in advertise.

Thanks for the schooling. When you are done patting yourself on the ass, could you show me one of these Ad's?

a reply to: network dude

Why is the right trying to create an uprising against higher education? Why?

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's such a joke about Russian influence in the US election in favor of Trump.

What about...

Fair question.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FlyingFox

Yeah. Really.

Why isn't Sessions all over that? Too busy with people smoking dope?

I think the likely canned answer will be, "she's not the president", which covers a lot of ground.

In 2012 between McCain and Obama, I joked that they could just call the next president's name at random to come down from the stands at Superbowl halftime, and that would be ok, or better than those other two.

Against that background, Trump looks pretty damn good.

In early 2016, I'm like, "I trust Putin more than Hillary".

In late 2017, same thing.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

I'm sure it did have something to do with education. It's a known fact that dems have more college educated members than republicans. Can't change facts. Trump was elected by the grass chewing crowd who hang out in bars and drink a lot of beer.

That's America, by the people and for the people.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

I'm sure it did have something to do with education. It's a known fact that dems have more college educated members than republicans. Can't change facts. Trump was elected by the grass chewing crowd who hang out in bars and drink a lot of beer.

The exact attitude that is represented by current Democratic leaders. Also exactly why they have been shown the door.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: network dude

Why is the right trying to create an uprising against higher education? Why?

ARE.....YOU.....SERIOUS?

is that how you see this? A pompous, arrogant person, spews moral and intellectual superiority against those who voted for the other person, and you see the questioning of that as an attack against higher education? Your education didn't do you any favors at all.

I'm sorry I only have an associates degree and learned what I know through work and USAF training, but I get along just fine. If you have a doctorate, super, glad you spent lots of time studying, but to think that somehow, your education makes you a better person, well, you aren't.

I'm almost thinking that the majority of the left only has book smarts. (the other kind is what us stupid folks use to make it through life, we call them street smarts)

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: network dude

Why is the right trying to create an uprising against higher education? Why?

ARE.....YOU.....SERIOUS?

is that how you see this? A pompous, arrogant person, spews moral and intellectual superiority against those who voted for the other person, and you see the questioning of that as an attack against higher education? Your education didn't do you any favors at all.

I'm sorry I only have an associates degree and learned what I know through work and USAF training, but I get along just fine. If you have a doctorate, super, glad you spent lots of time studying, but to think that somehow, your education makes you a better person, well, you aren't.

I'm almost thinking that the majority of the left only has book smarts. (the other kind is what us stupid folks use to make it through life, we call them street smarts)

Yes, I was serious. I see disdain a good bit around these boards, and I wondered what your take on it might be.
Instead of an answer, I appear to have received a boatload of personal insults, so I guess, nevermind about my
question, then.

Sorry I ruffled your feathers.

Leaked Descriptions Of Infamous "Russia Ads" Derail Collusion Narrative "They Showed Support For Clinton"

That was quick.

Less than a week after Facebook agreed to turn over to Congressional investigators copies of the 3,000-odd political advertisements that the company said it had inadvertently sold to a Russia-linked group intent on meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the contents of the ads have – unsurprisingly – leaked, just as we had expected them to.

Congressional investigators shared the information with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which has repeatedly allowed information about its investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russian operatives to leak to the press. Once this happened, we knew it was only a matter of time before the ads became part of the public record.

And, shockingly, descriptions of the ads provided to the Washington Post hardly fit the narrative that Democratic lawmakers have spun in recent weeks, claiming the ads – which didn’t advocate on behalf of a specific candidate, but rather hewed to political issues like abortion rights – were instrumental in securing Trump’s victory.

After initially denying the story this spring, Facebook came clean earlier this month, saying its investigators had discovered that the company sold at least $100,000 worth of ads – and possibly as much as $150,000 – to Russia-linked group that bought the ads through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts.

WaPo reports that the ads represented issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum, which would suggest that the buyers didn’t intend to support a specific candidate, but rather their own unique agenda.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Hey, I don't know if anyone filled you in but we're onto kneeling and football stuff (American football!) !!

Nice find and I doubt this will be heard anywhere in the MSM and should it, it will be spin.

The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African-American rights groups including Black Lives Matter and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign. The Russian campaign — taking advantage of Facebook’s ability to simultaneously send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics - also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm sure it did have something to do with education. It's a known fact that dems have more college educated members than republicans. Can't change facts. Trump was elected by the grass chewing crowd who hang out in bars and drink a lot of beer.

Such a fool you are, to still be looking at this complex situation through the dem/rep construct. It has never been more inferior and irrelevant to what is happening in today's political landscape.

You truly do not see the bigger picture. You are mentally incapable of contemplating such a complexity.

And you represent the metropolitan soros subversion, with your willful refusal to accept reality as it unveiled before you.

Was Facebook Pressured Into Finding ‘Something’ to Implicate Russia?

Robert Parry of Consortium News just published an extremely important article picking apart The Washington Post’s latest attempt to convince readers that Russia influenced the 2016 U.S. election. In this case, by purchasing a measly $100,000 of Facebook ads.

The Washington Post, which has a history of falsely claiming certain alternative media websites work for the Kremlin, is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, which has a $600 million contract with the CIA. When it comes to Russia hysteria, the paper is in a class of its own.

What follows are some key excerpts from Parry’s piece, WPost Pushes More Dubious Russia-bashing.

And here are the latest Robert Parry articles :

The Rise of the New McCarthyism

WAPO Pushes More Dubious Russia-bashing

The Crazy Imbalance of Russia-gate

The NYT’s Yellow Journalism on Russia



In Stunning Reversal, DHS Says Russians Were Not Behind Attempted Wisconsin Vote Hacking

Just in time for the weekend, the Associated Press reported on Friday that the Department of Homeland Security had notified 21 states earlier that day that their election systems had been targeted by malicious cyber actors. The states and DHS quickly jumped to the conclusion that Russia had ordered the cyberattacks, even though it was reported that the identity or identities of the perpetrators were inconclusive Yet, the news spread like wildfire after readers had been primed as reports of possible infiltartion of state election systems had circulated for nearly a year. Even so, for many states, the call Friday from the Department of Homeland Security was the first official confirmation that their election systems had, in fact, been targeted by hackers.

Federal officials said that in most of the 21 states, the targeting was preparatory activity such as scanning computer systems.

But in a stunning reversal - one which we doubt will put endless rumors of Russian cyberinterference to bed - the AP now reports that DHS has told Wisconsin that the Russian government was not involved in the cyber-targeting.

In an email to the state’s deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice of Russian involvement was made in error. Also, as we noted at the time, the government did not originally assign blame to the Russians when news of the alleged "scanning" initially broke on Friday although most medias jumped at the opportunity to blame Putin.

Reminder : 2016 email from Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO) to John Podesta :

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2016-01-02 22:07
Subject: RE: Happy New Year

I am thrilled at the progress Hillary is making. Thank you for the kind thoughts. No one was more excited for this year to END than me! Onward to a new year and hopefully health and happiness for you and your family.

 

From: John Podesta [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Sheryl Sandberg
Subject: Happy New Year

Wishing you a happy New Year. 2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States.

Have a great New Year.

-John

 

Source : WIKILEAKS : /podesta-emails/emailid/56638

The dunning-kruger effect. You should spend some time reading up on it.

Some of the most successful people in the world didn't even finish school. College, is by no means equivalent to intelligence. You can memorize information while still having the thinking ability of a carrot.

As far as the "foreign" intervention in our nation, our elections, our personal lives. Clinton had China so far up his butt he should have a red star tattooed on his forehead. Bush, and I know people really liked him, wife included, was just short of pulling up the Saudi king's skirt and giving him head on national TV.

To be screaming so much about Trump being the do all and end all of foreign intervention in this nation speaks to a severe lack of consciousness.

Me, I'm getting just what I wanted by him being in office. First and foremost a very serious dislike and distrust of our government. They deserve and have earned it. Some times you just have to shake a baby to wake it up (meaning the general public). I want people mad. I want them pissed. I want them thinking.

Trump is doing just fine. Off to have another cup of coffee...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: luke1212

Yes people really care about it. Russia worked hard to discredit Clinton and raise trump up to acceptable.
They worked to brainwash certain sets of people. Rural, low education, laborers that trump was their savior. Apparent they did an excellent job.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

I'm sure it did have something to do with education. It's a known fact that dems have more college educated members than republicans. Can't change facts. Trump was elected by the grass chewing crowd who hang out in bars and drink a lot of beer.

Did they actually verify their education level or did they just take their word for it?

Retro-influence? Half of ‘Russian ads’ on Facebook shown after US vote, 25% ‘never seen’ at all

More than half of the ‘Russian advertisements’ on Facebook that supposedly influenced the 2016 US elections actually appeared after the vote, the company has revealed. Nobody even saw one-quarter of the ads bought by “inauthentic accounts.”
In September, Facebook vowed to deliver Congress some 3,000 ads purchased between 2015 and 2017 and connected to 470 “inauthentic” accounts and pages, which, as it continues to say, “appear to have come from a Russian entity.” However, Moscow has blasted those allegations, while repeatedly stating that it had nothing to do with the 2016 vote.

“44% of total ad impressions (number of times ads were displayed) were before the US election on November 8, 2016; 56% were after the election,” the social media giant stated on Monday as it published some “facts” about “Russian ads.”

However, over “25% of the ads were never shown to anyone,” the Monday ‘factsheet’ says, adding the posts have reached some 10 million users.

On the same day the company announced that it is increasing authenticity requirements for advertisers, adding over 1,000 people to its ad-review staff after claiming it found paid postings on “divisive” social and political issues that “appeared” to stem from a Russian entity.

No evidence of Russia’s alleged hacking of the US elections has been presented as yet, despite a whole team at the US Justice Department struggling to investigate the ‘meddling’.