Thursday, November 2, 2017

Did Spending $100,000 On Facebook That Produced 0.004% Of Ad Content On Its Newsfeed Was Enough To Swing The U.S. Election?

(L-R) Colin Stretch, general counsel for Facebook; Sean Edgett, acting general counsel for Twitter; and Richard Salgado, director of law enforcement and information security at Google, are sworn in prior to testifying before Senate Judiciary Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee hearing on on "ways to combat and reduce the amount of Russian propaganda and extremist content online," on Capitol Hill in Washington, US, October 31, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The Hill: Facebook: 126 million people could have seen Russian election content

Facebook and Twitter will reveal new details on the extent of Russian influence on their platforms, according to sources familiar with their upcoming congressional testimonies.

Google also shed light on their internal investigation into the matter, detailed in a post by its general counsel, Kent Walker.

Facebook will say that as many as 126 million people may have seen content posted by the Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency when it offers testimony on Tuesday about Russia's influence on its platform during the 2016 campaign.

Read more ....

Update: Facebook estimates 126 million people were served content from Russia-linked pages (CNN).

WNU Editor: The BBC puts all of this into perspective .... Russia, Facebook, the US election and when 126 million isn't 126 million (Mark Frankel, BBC). RT has also posted their top Twitter posts during last year's elections .... RT reveals its top promoted tweets during US election campaign, & the results may surprise you (RT). For RT's Twitter feed, if this accurate .... the U.S. election was not a popular topic on its feed.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Facebook not the only social media used by Russia

Unknown said...

In my opinion the only reason Trump won the election is because he ran against a figure even more polarizing than Obama - Hillary Clinton. I believe it was truly an election AGAINST one candidate rather than FOR the other. I believe that whatever happened on Facebook only served to further solidify already polarized positions. The way Clinton got her party's nomination probably played a bigger role in her defeat than did social media - but that doesn't excuse tampering with or trying to influence another country's elections. Nor does it excuse using social media to demonize, or worse, un-Americanize your opposition just to win.

fred said...

...and then there is this
there is more to social media than Facebook

War News Updates Editor said...

I concur Matthew.

Unknown said...

Do the Democrat Leaders want to say that these people, their supporters (in Democrat eyes), would normally have voted Democrat except that they are easily fooled?

Do the Democrats want to go there?


Maybe Democrat leaders think that, because they are easily fooled. They are not that smart after all.

:)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

:)

Jay Farquharson said...

"Her account was the creation of employees at the Internet Research Agency, or the Russian government-funded “troll farm,” in St. Petersburg.
Jenna Abrams, the freewheeling American blogger who believed in a return to segregation and said that many of America’s problems stemmed from PC culture run amok, did not exist."

Snip

"Abrams, who at one point boasted nearly 70,000 Twitter followers, was featured in articles written by Bustle, U.S. News and World Report, USA Today, several local Fox affiliates, InfoWars, BET, Yahoo Sports, Sky News, IJR, Breitbart, The Washington Post, Mashable, New York Daily News, Quartz, Dallas News, France24, HuffPost, The Daily Caller, The Telegraph, CNN, the BBC, Gizmodo, The Independent, The Daily Dot, The Observer, Business Insider, The National Post, Refinery29, The Times of India, BuzzFeed, The Daily Mail, The New York Times, and, of course, Russia Today and Sputnik."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jenna-abrams-russias-clown-troll-princess-duped-the-mainstream-media-and-the-world?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Unknown said...

Jenna Abrams does not exist and Jay believe that all 70,000 of 'her' followers exist?

You can fake followers and complaints.

The Russians are playing catch up. They borrowed a page out the Leftis/libtard/DNC play book.


"A TV station in Indianapolis broadcast the story of the bakery rejecting the request to bake a cake for a commitment ceremony for two men. The next day Facebook and Twitter blew up with outrage. By the way, that’s all manufactured, too. Take it from one who knows. Take it from one who is a target of some of this stuff. We have done research, folks, we have found out that it’s 10 to 11 people who have found a way, using advanced algorithms, to make themselves appear to be thousands upon thousands of people.
There is on Twitter this thing called StopRush, and it’s people attacking me and this program much the way Indiana is being attacked today, and whatever conservative institution was attacked yesterday. What this group does is they go after local advertisers on local EIB affiliates, and they try to intimidate local businesses. This cake shop is an example, I don’t know if they’re one, but like this little mom-and-pop businesses. They just overwhelm them with complaint tweets, threatening tweets, a bunch of e-mails.
It’s 10 people. We researched it. We know who the people are. We know where they live. Virtually 85% of all the so-called outrage e-mails and tweets are generated by 10 people, made to look as though they are thousands and thousands and thousands. It’s all fake. It’s all phony. It’s all part of a left-wing, massive smear operation. It’s defamation, it’s smear, it’s everything you can imagine. But it’s made to look legit, and it does look legit until you get into it. It just scares the hell out of people. So here’s this bakery shutting down because Twitter hummed with outrage.
We are led to believe, we’re supposed to think that when something like this happens, Okay, a gay couple walk into a bake shop in Indianapolis, they want a cake. The bake shop says, “Sorry, no, we don’t believe in gay marriage. We’re not gonna bake your cake.” Ask yourself, how, then, do thousands upon thousands of people find out about that within hours? How does that happen? How all of a sudden does this bake shop start getting all of these tweets and all of these e-mails, all of them threatening, by the way. Some of them are scary threatening."

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/01/how_radical_leftists_use_psychological_twitter_tricks_to_make_themselves_look_like_the_majority/

Jay Farquharson said...

That's funny, because you friended her on FaceBook,

Or is that a different Anzino Smith.

Facebook so far estimates that 126 million people were "trolled" and subjected to ads and other Russian influences on Facebook.

Funny thing is, if I want to know what your rant's tomorrow will be, all I have to do is go to Hamilton 68 to see what the Kremlin is pushing today.

http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org


https://mobile.twitter.com/kremlintrolls?lang=en


Unknown said...

"That's funny, because you friended her on FaceBook,

Or is that a different Anzino Smith.


First, get the spelling of the name right.
Second, I am honest about the name.
Third, for a supposedly intelligent person and none with a web browser, it is amazing that you do not know what the name means.


Facebook so far estimates "

I am sure the boss Zuckerberg can get his staff to use any methodology he wants. I gave you an example where 10 people made it look like there were 10,000. Those were 10 retired or semi-retired 'educator' sitting ion their dirty underwear spamming away from their domiciles.

Supposing the Russians, Obama embeds in the CIA, Leftists anywhere made their own Facebook account. You think they would stop there and not generate likes for that account?