Hillary Clinton: Mark Zuckerberg ‘Should Pay a Price’ for Facebook Political Ads

[Dontrike]

I think republicans need to attend NA meetings for Clinton. Not that it matters really. They're replacing her with other hate boner drug highs like AOC.

AOC was the replacement for her, but they ran through that quickly and need to go back to the classic hate drug.

[Draco-Onis]

That's a dangerous problem, because he seems to be a lot more intelligent than Trump.

But he is not as charismatic or personable which is good since Trump's following is a cult of personality so he has his work cut out for him to go that same path.

[Kaleredar]

But he is not as charismatic or personable which is good since Trump's following is a cult of personality so he has his work cut out for him to go that same path.

True. But I hope that the next democrat president will shore up a lot of the nonsense and cracks in the system that allowed Trump to do and get away with the things he's done, before someone smart and competent decides to use them to the same nefarious ends that Trump has attempted to.

Because while Trump's skullduggery shows us what weaknesses have cropped up in the US' government, it could also serve as a "just don't do this and you can get away with it" or a "be sure you've secured cronies in X, Y and Z positions first" roadmap for people wishing to exploit the office of the presidency as well.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I love Hillary, but I don't always agree on this meh, I think Facebook can do as it likes again like with Twitter, YouTube it is a private company, don't like it, then don't use it.

[D Luniz]

she isnt wrong
they are WAY better off self regulating now, then letting things get to where congress acts
and its why we have the MPAA, CCA, ESRB and PEGI
all of them started because they knew that it was becoming more likely that some government was going to step in

the average age of congress is 57 for the House and 61 for the Senate, and seeing the things most of them say, and how the net neutrality issue went, no one wants them passing laws on this.

[Omega10]

she isnt wrong
they are WAY better off self regulating now, then letting things get to where congress acts
and its why we have the MPAA, CCA, ESRB and PEGI
all of them started because they knew that it was becoming more likely that some government was going to step in

the average age of congress is 57 for the House and 61 for the Senate, and seeing the things most of them say, and how the net neutrality issue went, no one wants them passing laws on this.

I wish I disagreed with the bolded statement.

[Draco-Onis]

True. But I hope that the next democrat president will shore up a lot of the nonsense and cracks in the system that allowed Trump to do and get away with the things he's done, before someone smart and competent decides to use them to the same nefarious ends that Trump has attempted to.

Because while Trump's skullduggery shows us what weaknesses have cropped up in the US' government, it could also serve as a "just don't do this and you can get away with it" or a "be sure you've secured cronies in X, Y and Z positions first" roadmap for people wishing to exploit the office of the presidency as well.

You are right a smarter more politically apt president could easily turn this country into a dictatorship, Trump is showing a road map others can perfect on.

[Fandasiril]

You don't see why targeted ads that are false are a problem for American democracy? Everyone has their own set of facts, all of which are false?

Not really. First, I don't believe they are effective and I've seen no data suggesting that they were.

Second the mainstream media on the left and right isn't much better. Fox News and the liberal media networks don't flat out lie about stuff, but you can still manipulate the truth very effectively - arguably the more subtle it is the better because people are less naturally suspicious.

I find it quite disturbing that after Sanders heart attack the liberal networks designed to color his face red by using excessive contrast when he actually looked relatively healthy. And I'm sure you know all the bullshit Fox gets up to. These things are very overt, but IMO what is far more dangerous is the excessive focus on personality, drama, faux (rather than real) identity politics and never anything about the really important social issues Americans face.

To my mind "fake news" is actually quite useful in that it forces people to actually think about what they are being told and question everything.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort did it for the campaign. To which they gave that info to the Russians to target these people.

We have no evidence that Hillary did, because they didn't hire a dodgy company like Cambridge Analytica, that magically went out of business after a whistleblower came forward about their questionable data practices, and magically reincorporated into another company that does the same fucking thing.

I don't trust the Russians but I have seen no credible evidence that they were involved. i see no reason why they had to be involved and I do not think they were beyond a trivial level. This is one of the reasons I am not as worried about fake news as most people, for years now Rachael Maddow et al have been ranting insanely about Russia without a shred of substantiation.

The legal issue with Cambridge Analytica is that they obtained the data illegally. I agree you should go to jail for that. But in the broader picture it is unnecessary, you can harvest data from public sources quite legally and use it to target people. And I would be very surprised if both major parties in the US are not doing that. Facebook is the easiest way to do that but it isn't by any means the only way to do that.

[Draco-Onis]

Not really. First, I don't believe they are effective and I've seen no data suggesting that they were.

You are basically saying that the entire advertising industry doesn't work.

[Ronin2k]

Hillary Clinton is such a sore loser.

You're the one that's not over the 2016 election get over it.

Everytime Hillary gets mentioned some sperg just HAS to make some dumb comment about the 2016 election it's getting cringe at this point

[Orbitus]

I don't trust the Russians but I have seen no credible evidence that they were involved. i see no reason why they had to be involved and I do not think they were beyond a trivial level. This is one of the reasons I am not as worried about fake news as most people, for years now Rachael Maddow et al have been ranting insanely about Russia without a shred of substantiation.

The legal issue with Cambridge Analytica is that they obtained the data illegally. I agree you should go to jail for that. But in the broader picture it is unnecessary, you can harvest data from public sources quite legally and use it to target people. And I would be very surprised if both major parties in the US are not doing that. Facebook is the easiest way to do that but it isn't by any means the only way to do that.

Really? The Mueller Report, Trump's Intelligence Agencies, Obama's Intelligence Agencies, Senate Intelligence Report, House Intelligence report, and you can't find ANY EVIDENCE? What the fuck? Their ads were seen by over 120 million Americans. And we know there is at least 60+ million morons that voted for Trump, that number has dwindled down a little bit, but not much. Rachael Maddow has the evidence, it isn't her fault that you can't understand it.

There is ZERO evidence that the Democrats are doing what the Republicans did with the Trump campaign. And there is a reason that people are calling on Facebook to ban political ads on their platform like Twitter did. But Zuckerberg wants the fucking money apparently. There is a reason he is being roasted everytime he goes to sit in front of Congress.

[Fandasiril]

You are basically saying that the entire advertising industry doesn't work.

Fake news stories of the "Hilary is an alien" type are hyperbolic, they will be believed by hardcore Republicans but not centrists/floating voters, and are not effective. That's just a waste of money. I've never seen any data suggesting they are and I doubt it could be produced.

Marketing doesn't work that way. Most effective method of persuasion is Socratic yes-yes method which is extremely subtle, the exact opposite of "fake news".

Targeted advertising is effective. However, it is legal and here to stay and both parties will use it, it is not an issue. If Jeb doesn't like gun control, rants about gun control on his facebook page publicly, there's nothing any one can or should do to stop the local Republican candidate sending him an ad pointing out he supports gun control, unfortunately.

[Draco-Onis]

Fake news stories of the "Hilary is an alien" type are hyperbolic, they will be believed by hardcore Republicans but not centrists/floating voters, and are not effective. That's just a waste of money. I've never seen any data suggesting they are and I doubt it could be produced.

Marketing doesn't work that way. Most effective method of persuasion is Socratic yes-yes method which is extremely subtle, the exact opposite of "fake news".

Targeted advertising is effective. However, it is legal and here to stay and both parties will use it, it is not an issue. If Jeb doesn't like gun control, rants about gun control on his facebook page publicly, there's nothing any one can or should do to stop the local Republican candidate sending him an ad pointing out he supports gun control, unfortunately.

/facepalm

They weren't running Hillary is an alien ads they were taking things like Benghazi, her fainting and any other topic and playing on people's worse fears. They also had counter campaigns with supporters of Bernie talking about how Clinton screwed him it's all in the Mueller report and then some. It was exactly as you describe subtle the Hillary is an alien fake news types come from mostly American rag places.

[Orbitus]

Fake news stories of the "Hilary is an alien" type are hyperbolic, they will be believed by hardcore Republicans but not centrists/floating voters, and are not effective. That's just a waste of money. I've never seen any data suggesting they are and I doubt it could be produced.

Marketing doesn't work that way. Most effective method of persuasion is Socratic yes-yes method which is extremely subtle, the exact opposite of "fake news".

Targeted advertising is effective. However, it is legal and here to stay and both parties will use it, it is not an issue. If Jeb doesn't like gun control, rants about gun control on his facebook page publicly, there's nothing any one can or should do to stop the local Republican candidate sending him an ad pointing out he supports gun control, unfortunately.

No, we are talking about fake stories like Hillary selling the Uranium in Uranium One, even though she had no control over the sale and the money she got in the Clinton Foundation she can't personally use. MILLIONS of Republicans believed that, and it was pushed by Russian bots and I think there are still people on here that try to push that bullshit every now and again.

The author of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer, pushed this shit, even though in an interview on ABC I think, he said he had no evidence for the claim, but he still put it in the book, like a moron. Then I think Breitbart made it into a fucking "documentary" movie.

[Fandasiril]

Really? The Mueller Report, Trump's Intelligence Agencies, Obama's Intelligence Agencies, Senate Intelligence Report, House Intelligence report, and you can't find ANY EVIDENCE? What the fuck? Their ads were seen by over 120 million Americans. And we know there is at least 60+ million morons that voted for Trump, that number has dwindled down a little bit, but not much. Rachael Maddow has the evidence, it isn't her fault that you can't understand it.

An investigation into something is NOT evidence-that is like saying everyone who goes to court is guilty. You have an investigation to find evidence, they are not evidence in themselves.

What ads? When? Were they effective? If so, how. I've seen no primary evidence of Russian involvement beyond a trivial level.

- - - Updated - - -

No, we are talking about fake stories like Hillary selling the Uranium in Uranium One, even though she had no control over the sale and the money she got in the Clinton Foundation she can't personally use. MILLIONS of Republicans believed that, and it was pushed by Russian bots and I think there are still people on here that try to push that bullshit every now and again.

You keep mixing up concepts which are not connected. How do you know Russians were involved with promoting that story?

People lie at elections, sure. I could point to dozens of examples of similar legerdemain by both parties. That doesn't indicate a Russian bot network.

[Orbitus]

An investigation into something is NOT evidence-that is like saying everyone who goes to court is guilty. You have an investigation to find evidence, they are not evidence in themselves.

What ads? When? Were they effective? If so, how. I've seen no primary evidence of Russian involvement beyond a trivial level.

So, the investigations, that all said the same thing, that Russians did it, aren't evidence that the Russians did it?

And there were literally THOUSANDS of ads, and thousands of bots that pushed this bullshit. And we know they are effective, because we have had millions of people that pushed those conspiracy theories.

And if you have seen no primary evidence beyond a trivial level, you are either Russian, Fox News viewer, OR NOT EVEN FUCKING LOOKING FOR IT.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep mixing up concepts which are not connected. How do you know Russians were involved with promoting that story?

People lie at elections, sure. I could point to dozens of examples of similar legerdemain by both parties. That doesn't indicate a Russian bot network.

Because we KNOW they were.

[Fandasiril]

/facepalm

They weren't running Hillary is an alien ads they were taking things like Benghazi, her fainting and any other topic and playing on people's worse fears. They also had counter campaigns with supporters of Bernie talking about how Clinton screwed him it's all in the Mueller report and then some. It was exactly as you describe subtle the Hillary is an alien fake news types come from mostly American rag places.

Then I don't see the issue. All the major news networks do that shit all the time, the Republicans are worse at it probably but the Democrats, at least the corporate democrats, are hardly irreproachable. That war just moved online.

The credible complaint here is that Cambridge Analytica sourced the data illegally. Beyond that it doesn't seem you have that much to complain about.

- - - Updated - - -

So, the investigations, that all said the same thing, that Russians did it, aren't evidence that the Russians did it?

They did not say that at all.

[Orbitus]

Then I don't see the issue. All the major news networks do that shit all the time, the Republicans are worse at it probably but the Democrats, at least the corporate democrats, are hardly irreproachable. That war just moved online.

The credible complaint here is that Cambridge Analytica sourced the data illegally. Beyond that it doesn't seem you have that much to complain about.

Except that the CA information was accessed by Russians. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...damian-collins

They then used that information to target specific areas and states. Along with the internal polling that Paul Manafort gave to Konstantin Kilimnik.

- - - Updated - - -

They did not say that at all.

So, Mueller didn't indict what? 19 Russians for their meddling, including Oleg Deripaska? You better tell him that they didn't do what has been confirmed they did.

[Fandasiril]

So, Mueller didn't indict what? 19 Russians for their meddling, including Oleg Deripaska? You better tell him that they didn't do what has been confirmed they did.

You really do seem to have a problem with understanding what evidence is. Evidence is not a prosecution, an in investigation, it is source material indicating someone did something.

To cut this short I've decided to do your homework for you, the Mueller report says this:

"The first method of Russian interference was done through the Internet Research Agency (IRA), waging "a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."[25] The IRA also sought to "provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States"

By February 2016, internal IRA documents showed an order to support the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, while IRA members were to "use any opportunity to criticize" Hillary Clinton and the rest of the candidates. From June 2016, the IRA organized election rallies in the U.S. "often promoting" Trump's campaign while "opposing" Clinton's campaign. The IRA posed as Americans, hiding their Russian background, while asking Trump campaign members for campaign buttons, flyers, and posters for the rallies. The Mueller Report detailed that the IRA spent $100,000 for over 3,500 Facebook advertisements, which included anti-Clinton and pro-Trump advertisements.


To make this easier for you, that is evidence, documents clearly indicating Russian involvement. That's what you should have produced.

Now, my issue with this is not the Russians were involved, it was that they were involved on a trivial level. The report suggests $100,000 was spent. Do you know how much money is spent in American politics? It is a lot more than $100,000. Really, I'm disappointed in the Kremlin, this is kind of pathetic. I really would have expected them to be doing something much more sinister.

Given the historic level of involvement Russia, not to mention the US, has in foreign countries, this is absolutely nothing. Are you seriously telling me the US electorate can be bought for 100k? Order me two lots of presidents with fries to go....

[Fandasiril]

So, Mueller didn't indict what? 19 Russians for their meddling, including Oleg Deripaska? You better tell him that they didn't do what has been confirmed they did.

You really do seem to have a problem with understanding what evidence is. Evidence is not a prosecution, an in investigation, it is source material indicating someone did something.

To cut this short I've decided to do your homework for you, the Mueller report says this:

"The first method of Russian interference was done through the Internet Research Agency (IRA), waging "a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."[25] The IRA also sought to "provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States"

By February 2016, internal IRA documents showed an order to support the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, while IRA members were to "use any opportunity to criticize" Hillary Clinton and the rest of the candidates. From June 2016, the IRA organized election rallies in the U.S. "often promoting" Trump's campaign while "opposing" Clinton's campaign. The IRA posed as Americans, hiding their Russian background, while asking Trump campaign members for campaign buttons, flyers, and posters for the rallies. The Mueller Report detailed that the IRA spent $100,000 for over 3,500 Facebook advertisements, which included anti-Clinton and pro-Trump advertisements."


To make this easier for you, that is evidence, documents clearly indicating Russian involvement. That's what you should have produced.

Now, my issue with this is not the Russians were involved, it was that they were involved on a trivial level. The report suggests $100,000 was spent. Do you know how much money is spent in American politics? It is a lot more than $100,000. Really, I'm disappointed in the Kremlin, this is kind of pathetic. I really would have expected them to be doing something much more sinister. 3,500 ads?... there are mom&pop businesses across the US that have individually paid for twice as many ads.

Given the historic level of involvement Russia, not to mention the US, has in foreign countries, this is absolutely nothing. Are you seriously telling me the US electorate can be bought for 100k? Order me two presidents with fries to go....

For context, the Israeli lobby has spent 1.75 million on campaigning in the US this year, no one is complaining about that.

(Btw Before I get any more accusations of being Russian bot, I am of Polish descent and married to a Ukrainian and for those reasons and others I look forward to the inevitable day that Putin gets ripped to pieces by a lynch mob. )