Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia

Re:Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Faceboo... by aksss on Monday July 16, 2018 @04:36PM (#17544850)

I think it's telling that tech people are very skeptical of the "$100k in facebook ads turned the election" narrative. Read the actual report from the DNI. Election counts weren't altered, the ads are nothing-burger. The hacks on mail systems were primarily done with spear-phishing, the same things businesses are caught with every day. My conclusion - phishing is the real story here of any consequence, if we want to "do something" it should be centered around better defense against this. That said, it's very interesting that Podesta's emails DID reveal collusion between the campaign and revolving-door political/media employees (CNN leaking debate questions to Hillary, etc). That's also a very significant story, and the more the narrative about Russia sucks all the oxygen out of the room, the less we're talking or even thinking about that kind of corrupt shit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Faceboo... by dragonwriter on Monday July 16, 2018 @05:15PM (#17545200)

> I think it's telling that tech people are very skeptical of the "$100k in facebook ads turned the election" narrative.

But...that narrative doesn't exist, it's a strawman.

No one that attributes any significant impact on the election to the Russian information warfare operation limits their description of the operation to $100K in Facebook ads. The Facebook part of the operation involved ads designed (among other purposes) to draw audience to false-flag Pages, that then distributed non-ad propaganda which would be relayed by the followers of the group, who were dupes of the operation, including organizing meat-space events designed to foment conflict and draw conventional media attention. The $100K on ads wasn't the operation, it was an expenditure to recruit unwitting agents for the operation.

And that broader Facebook angle itself wasn't the whole operation, either, there was also the targeted hacking and information release aspect, as well as other channels through which influence was (or was attempted to be) exercised. Like the NRA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Faceboo... by mistermann on Monday July 16, 2018 @07:17PM (#17545998)

> No one that attributes any significant impact on the election to the Russian information warfare operation limits their description of the operation to $100K in Facebook ads.

You are technically correct. The $100k part of it is stripped out before the "Russian Facebook hacking to steal the election" is reported over and over in the media, absent of any details. And that is how the majority of the public is absolutely certain of something, even though almost none of them know any of the details.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Faceboo... by wefarrell on Monday July 16, 2018 @05:14PM (#17545191)

I've never heard anyone claim that "$100k in facebook ads turned the election".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Faceboo... by SlowRobotAhead on Monday July 16, 2018 @04:52PM (#17544990)

How this comment isn't massively downvoted - I have no idea. I ate my face on this site saying exactly the same thing last week.

There are unethical things discovered from the Clinton campaign in the wake of a spear phishing attack. How can I be more mad at the messenger than the people who did the unfavorable actions in the first place? Why should I believe a guy with "P@sswor0d" was hacked by Russian Intelligence vs any one of the other thousand people looking for credentials on this guy?

[ Parent | on HN ]