First, the $100,000 may not be the full spend, it's just the minimum based on what has been identified as false-flag accounts linked to Russia. There may well have been orders of magnitude more spending that has not been identified as false flag accounts (further, it's not even the total expenditure of resources on the false flag accounts, just the part actually spent buying placement—when comparing to campaign spending numbers, when all the resources spent on content development, etc., and not just placement are counted.)
Second, people may discount messages that are official campaign messages (which have required disclosures to prevent falsifying origin), so there may be a significant influence multiplier for false-flag “astroturf” spending of the kind Russia engaged in.
I believe the number of voters in key districts needed to swing the electoral college to Clinton was in the tens of thousands. If it was targeted perfectly (which of course is impossible), that's almost two dollars a person that needed to be influenced. How many Facebook ads impressions does that buy per person? While I think it's unlikely that anyone could have accurately targeted to that degree, it does put into perspective just how important targeted advertising might be to something like this.
Additionally (and I think more likely), the advertising might have been been used more as an agitation device, and to reduce the trust in traditional information through highly effective misinformation. If you can start viral memes, it doesn't matter how many impressions you paid for, what's important is how far the meme spreads in the end. A single shared article can lead to tens of millions of views and re-shares. In this case, money is purely a way to help get critical mass for your specially crafted meme, so it doesn't necessarily compare to candidate spending directly, which needs to both educate and counteract opponent messaging. Targeted disinformation can just ignore failed meme campaigns and counteractions to them and move onto the next meme, since it's effectively anonymous.
Targeting ads to play on deep seated racial issues using the fruits of an unprecedented data mining operation, combined with targeting to swing states can have a very high ROI considering the rust belt and some midwest states were going to be razor close regardless.
Seems right out of Foundations of Geopolitics [1].
> Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
> use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism...
And therein lies the sad reality for us all. Given how brilliant Russians truly are, had they directed their tremendous cultural wealth instead toward stabilizing and strengthening this world, perhaps they would have already achieved their goals of leading it long ago. Of course, that might entail in some ways to not follow in the footsteps of its current leaders.
Somewhat tangential, but does anyone know why Russia likes the word "geopolitics" so much? Does it mirror a Russian word with a similar meaning?
In my experience, it's used so much by Russian propaganda sources and so rarely elsewhere that it serves as a good fingerprint of the Kremlin's influence. If someone uses it, I know there's a good chance that either they're Russian (and read Russian news) or that they read/watch RT.
This started as "Russia hacked the election" and now we are talking about Russia taking out ads in support of BLM claiming its a psyop? At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not.
The actual campaigns took out billions of $ in ads and campaign ads are never honest, accurate or logical. Who cares about $100k in Russian ads?
Those are not the same things. There is an unfolding story about employment of paid and farmed action on social platforms by Russia to influence the election, but also an unfolding story about attempts to infiltrate state voting systems and voter rolls. The nexus of the two is in how users were targeted for the former using data potentially taken from the latter.
It was pretty clear, even for the sensationalized media and sensationalizable public, that Russia did not "hack" the election and that no votes were altered, etc. But now it turns out, hey, there were actually successful penetrations of state voting systems, and at present we are not sure of the extent.
So while the initial "Russia hacked the US election" line was quickly redrawn to be precise about what we knew, it turns out now that there's a reasonable possibility that Russia actually did hack our election. To what extent or effect? Yet unknown.
> At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not.
I don't see that as the issue here.
If there's a plane crash in the US, there is an exhaustive effort to identify the failures and improve policies and technology so it doesn't get repeated. Trump sees any audit or investigation into the election as a personal attack on him. I see any feet-dragging as a personal attack on US sovereignty, which is what he was elected to protect.
I get that lots of the 5/6 of America who didn't vote for Trump want some way to nullify the vote. I don't think it's healthy for the country (just like Gore in 2000 decided not to file additional lawsuits to extend the inevitable) to pretend like there is a viable path to overturning the election results.
I want and audit (of the election systems, election financing, and election-season media buys) and accountability for the failures of our overfunded and underperforming intelligence community + military cyber command. And I want some recommendations for policy changes and ideas about how to make sure the plebs are more media literate in the future.
> At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not.
The more this is investigated, the less like a democratic election this looks. So tell me: at what point will you accept that fact that the election Trump won was not a democratic election?
> At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election,
Even if everything was above board, at best Trump won exactly because of anti-democratic features of the US Presidential election system. So, in no case did Trump “win a democratic election”.
This talk (Rage against the weaponized AI propaganda machine) at DEF CON I attended showed research indicating that it doesn't take much to sway an election one way or the other -
just a couple percentage points and that tactics which are now being widely reported on do work towards that goal.
This is how they operate, in fact this is the MO of modern propaganda techniques: divide and conquer.
If we keep the fracas alive by distrusting our neighbors (loudly and proudly!), this lowers our ability to face threats from outside head-on. We need trust in our compatriots to do a good job doing whatever it is we want to do as a collective.
State actors with intent to harm a citizens' coalition only need to sow distrust and more than a few wrenches will be thrown in the cogs by people who feel they're doing the right thing protecting their country.
So, one country foisting this unholy mother-monster of all tracking and social control machines on as much of the world as doesn't actively block it, and then going all hissy when parts of the world make a bit of competent use.
Sounds like a surprisingly detailed scenario they've been able to reconstruct based on just $100k of ad spend.
It's funny the Russians didn't funnel the money through US based organizations to cover their tracks, it's almost like whoever did this wanted to be discovered. But gosh, why would that be?
I wonder if the United States under the Obama admin (with Secretary Clinton) tried to influence Russian elections. Maybe this is some personal score settling between HRC and Putin.
That said, I support better relations with Russia.
Perhaps the $100k was just the Russian government experimenting, and the real dollar values were funneled through shell organizations, or more sinister--with full knowledge and support of the Trump campaign.
I find it hard to believe anyone susceptible to having opinions on BLM or Muslims would be measurably influenced by an ad on facebook.
Maybe that's why they only spent 100K. A similar op by Western intelligence services would cost what... maybe 10 million? 100K in ads, 9.9 million for contractors and mid level management bureaucrats.
It's not about changing anyone's opinion. It's about feeding the outrage, pushing all the right buttons, to make the person as heavily engaged as possible - to show up at rallies, for example, and ultimately, to turn up at the voting booth.
[+] [-] VickBear|8 years ago|reply
With Clinton spending $141.7 million and Trump spending $58.8 million on advertising, does that miniscule amount even matter?
What was even the CTR with those advertisements?
Is there even anything wrong with any country or person(s) doing that or trying to do that since we already have Super PACs and lobbyists?
I have more thoughts that aren’t worth writing about (its impact on a person’s view), but is this Facebook advertising issue blown out of proportion?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
Second, people may discount messages that are official campaign messages (which have required disclosures to prevent falsifying origin), so there may be a significant influence multiplier for false-flag “astroturf” spending of the kind Russia engaged in.
[+] [-] kbenson|8 years ago|reply
Additionally (and I think more likely), the advertising might have been been used more as an agitation device, and to reduce the trust in traditional information through highly effective misinformation. If you can start viral memes, it doesn't matter how many impressions you paid for, what's important is how far the meme spreads in the end. A single shared article can lead to tens of millions of views and re-shares. In this case, money is purely a way to help get critical mass for your specially crafted meme, so it doesn't necessarily compare to candidate spending directly, which needs to both educate and counteract opponent messaging. Targeted disinformation can just ignore failed meme campaigns and counteractions to them and move onto the next meme, since it's effectively anonymous.
1: https://medium.com/@hoffa/hillary-only-needed-to-switch-53-6...
[+] [-] hackinthebochs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s73ver_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frandroid|8 years ago|reply
It's illegal?
But you ask good questions.
[+] [-] balls187|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeckalpha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nthitz|8 years ago|reply
> Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
[+] [-] kiernanmcgowan|8 years ago|reply
The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia.
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.
[+] [-] 0xbear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j1vms|8 years ago|reply
And therein lies the sad reality for us all. Given how brilliant Russians truly are, had they directed their tremendous cultural wealth instead toward stabilizing and strengthening this world, perhaps they would have already achieved their goals of leading it long ago. Of course, that might entail in some ways to not follow in the footsteps of its current leaders.
[+] [-] thedevil|8 years ago|reply
In my experience, it's used so much by Russian propaganda sources and so rarely elsewhere that it serves as a good fingerprint of the Kremlin's influence. If someone uses it, I know there's a good chance that either they're Russian (and read Russian news) or that they read/watch RT.
[+] [-] PathToHumble|8 years ago|reply
The actual campaigns took out billions of $ in ads and campaign ads are never honest, accurate or logical. Who cares about $100k in Russian ads?
[+] [-] beager|8 years ago|reply
It was pretty clear, even for the sensationalized media and sensationalizable public, that Russia did not "hack" the election and that no votes were altered, etc. But now it turns out, hey, there were actually successful penetrations of state voting systems, and at present we are not sure of the extent.
So while the initial "Russia hacked the US election" line was quickly redrawn to be precise about what we knew, it turns out now that there's a reasonable possibility that Russia actually did hack our election. To what extent or effect? Yet unknown.
[+] [-] hackinthebochs|8 years ago|reply
I guess you missed the news about their attempted and successful intrusions into state election databases?
[+] [-] thephyber|8 years ago|reply
I don't see that as the issue here.
If there's a plane crash in the US, there is an exhaustive effort to identify the failures and improve policies and technology so it doesn't get repeated. Trump sees any audit or investigation into the election as a personal attack on him. I see any feet-dragging as a personal attack on US sovereignty, which is what he was elected to protect.
I get that lots of the 5/6 of America who didn't vote for Trump want some way to nullify the vote. I don't think it's healthy for the country (just like Gore in 2000 decided not to file additional lawsuits to extend the inevitable) to pretend like there is a viable path to overturning the election results.
I want and audit (of the election systems, election financing, and election-season media buys) and accountability for the failures of our overfunded and underperforming intelligence community + military cyber command. And I want some recommendations for policy changes and ideas about how to make sure the plebs are more media literate in the future.
[+] [-] asdfologist|8 years ago|reply
We'll see when Mueller's investigation is over.
[+] [-] mcphage|8 years ago|reply
The more this is investigated, the less like a democratic election this looks. So tell me: at what point will you accept that fact that the election Trump won was not a democratic election?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
Even if everything was above board, at best Trump won exactly because of anti-democratic features of the US Presidential election system. So, in no case did Trump “win a democratic election”.
[+] [-] patcheudor|8 years ago|reply
https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2025/DEF%20CON%2025%20pre...
[+] [-] Steeeve|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixl97|8 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
[+] [-] s73ver_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dominotw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thriftwy|8 years ago|reply
$100k is too small to seriously influence something, but to measure flamebait level of various topics via CTR etc, it should be enough.
Also explains why they didn't hide.
[+] [-] uoaei|8 years ago|reply
If we keep the fracas alive by distrusting our neighbors (loudly and proudly!), this lowers our ability to face threats from outside head-on. We need trust in our compatriots to do a good job doing whatever it is we want to do as a collective.
State actors with intent to harm a citizens' coalition only need to sow distrust and more than a few wrenches will be thrown in the cogs by people who feel they're doing the right thing protecting their country.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] interfixus|8 years ago|reply
We are slightly amused.
[+] [-] mistermann|8 years ago|reply
It's funny the Russians didn't funnel the money through US based organizations to cover their tracks, it's almost like whoever did this wanted to be discovered. But gosh, why would that be?
[+] [-] justinzollars|8 years ago|reply
That said, I support better relations with Russia.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] balls187|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mozumder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vixen99|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Jimmie_Rustle|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eighthnate|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amaks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mythrwy|8 years ago|reply
Maybe that's why they only spent 100K. A similar op by Western intelligence services would cost what... maybe 10 million? 100K in ads, 9.9 million for contractors and mid level management bureaucrats.
[+] [-] int_19h|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gargoyle|8 years ago|reply