Russia-Linked Accounts Were Active on Facebook Ahead of Brexit (ft.com) 254
The Russia-linked troll farm that used Facebook to target Americans during last year's election was also active in the UK ahead of the Brexit vote (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source), the social media company has admitted. From a report: In a letter to the Electoral Commission, Facebook said accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency spent $0.97 for three ads in the days before the EU referendum. These ads appeared on approximately 200 news feeds in the UK before the country voted to leave the EU last year. For months the social media company has sidestepped questions from MPs and journalists about Russian interference through its platform in the UK. The concerns were fuelled by revelations this summer that Facebook had been weaponised by Russian entities before the election of US President Donald Trump. France and Germany have said their elections were also targeted. "We strongly support the Commission's efforts to regulate and enforce political campaign finance rules in the United Kingdom, and we take the Commission's request very seriously," Facebook said in the letter.
75p's worth (Score:3)
That's about the same value as a can of coke has been spent on pre-brexit facebook ads. Either, the spend was much better hidden (see how the vote leave campaign channelled GBP625,000 through a 23yr old student [independent.co.uk]) or brexit was not endorsed or funded by the Russians and simply fuelled by the stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
simply fuelled by the stupid.
We certainly have enough of those [theguardian.com] in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
The ads were only a small part of the problem, the main one was fake accounts. Russians pretending to be ordinary British people.
It's a very powerful technique, more so than obvious ads. That's why it's banned, companies aren't allowed to do it.
Re: 75p's worth (Score:2)
The Electoral Commision has concluded that Russian influence had very little effect so if you know differently I'd get in touch with them urgently. I think you're overestimating the power of social media to influence the over 60s.
I don't think Putin had much to do with it though. Brexit to me is a purely British fuck up driven by xenophobia, a hankering for the days of Empire (while forgetting how truly terrible the days of Empire were for most of the people of this country and the rest of the countries we
Re: (Score:2)
Brexit to me is a purely British fuck up driven by xenophobia
Uh no. It's driven more by things like mass rape gangs in multiple cities by "asians" where the councils lean on the police to do nothing, because both groups are afraid of being labeled as "racist" if they arrest them. Or the pre-teen girl who was charged under hate crime laws for calling her rapist a bad name, but her rapist wasn't charged. Or muslims running amok with "sharia zones" and the police doing nothing. It's driven far more by unhindered and unrestricted migration and people being driven out
Re: 75p's worth (Score:2)
What will leaving the EU do to change the disinterest of the UK authorities in the fate of poor people? Jimmy Savile abused more children on his own than these rape gangs and no one gave a shit about that either. That's not going to change just because it'll be harder for Polish people to come here.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's voting for Thatcher and Brexit that mainly did it, along with kicking the ladder away on your way up with the introduction of student loans and protecting your housing assets.
A boomer told me that the environmental damage done by pollution had been "worth it". For his generation perhaps, not for us lot who have to live with it and clean that shit up.
Re: 75p's worth (Score:2)
I haven't (yet!) read that book.
But... Isn't it pretty much standard for governments to try to socially destabilize their geopolitical rivals? Are there governments that *don't* do that?
"200 news feeds"! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"200 news feeds"! (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that the article (or maybe the source, Facebook) refuses to mention anything about the content of the ads. This is very similar to the "Russia-linked Facebook ads influencing the 2016 election" whose details were hidden for as long as the media could manage.
Eventually, it came out that those ads were supporting Black Lives Matter and Hillary.
The silence from the BBC and Facebook is a pretty strong indicator that the paltry advertising attempt was in support of the remain vote.
Re: (Score:2)
So far the vast majority of identified Russian fake accounts have been leave supporters. It makes sense, Russia's goal is to weaken and destabilize it's enemies and that's exactly what has happened. Remaining would have been much less beneficial to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are all nuts (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone who thinks Facebook has the power to persuade people of ANYTHING are insane. When has it ever changed YOUR mind? It's the ultimate echo/thunderdome chamber where everyone only agrees with each other or causes pain, no actual change takes place there...
Re: You guys are all nuts (Score:1)
so like slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Life is like a long useless meeting. Nothing gets done and nobodies opinion gets changed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
so like slashdot
Slashdot changed my opinion that Linux users were all a nice set of logically-thinking geeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd did that for me.
Point Up (Score:2)
EXACTLY like Slashdot, but with better Emoji support and no UID digits to tell you who to respect.
Re: (Score:2)
When has it ever changed YOUR mind?
. . . if Facebook can control your mind . . . would they let you know about it . . . ?
Maybe you're just a brain in a Facebook vat somewhere . . .
Re: (Score:2)
The wouldn't matter at all (Score:2)
1. Re-enforce your base's opinions and get them motivated to actually take action.
That would be great but the only thing Facebook excels at is de-motivation.
2. Depress your opponent's supporters.
Which Facebook does not really manage to do At All.
If everyone is in an echo chamber, then it's impossible to depress anyone. But on the flip side, you get all so beguiled by the echo chamber you do not need to do anything so if anything it makes it less likely you will take real action... Facebook is a tool for pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what it is NOT doing is changing how people vote at all
That is a grotesquely ignorant view. You do not need to change political opinions to affect the democratic process.
First of all, I agree that a typical Facebook post will not change a person's beliefs. Most opinions are too deeply ingrained to be overturned by a single argument---no matter how well-formulated.
However, agitation can affect voter turnout. If you systematically provoke one side and demoralize the other, you can cause a change in the distribution of votes without changing the underlying voter p
Up next on slashdot (Score:3)
97 cents worth of ads??? (Score:4, Insightful)
97 cents??? You're doing an entire Slashdot post about 97 cents worth of ads????
More than $140 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One board members and associates [battleswarmblog.com], but no, let's focus on 97 cents worth of ads.
The left's newfound Russia Derangement Syndrome is beyond parody.
Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
lol this guy is quoting snopes as if it was still credible
Re:Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? (Score:5, Informative)
That snopes article is full of so many inaccuracies that even World Weekly News wouldn't publish it. It also doesn't detract from the parent posters point that U1 dumped large sums of money to the Clinton's. Or that large parts of that uranium are now MIA, right off the fucking grid. Figure that one out, because it sure entered Canada and managed to get out of the country but nobody knows where it went. There's an on-going investigation here in Canada because it should have been something that was picked up by the ports.
Re:Or maybe you're a lying piece of garbage? (Score:4, Informative)
This covers some of it [thehill.com]. There's a bunch of other crap relating to it you can find on thehill who've done a good job documenting it. Also includes FOIA'd documents(via judicialwatch) from during the Obama era showing that the previous administration along with the state dept., knew something was afoot and ignored it, or were so inept they simply let it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about that ancient history? Trump supported a PAEDOPHILE! And what about all the women he sexually harassed? Or that terrible Xmas video his wife made?!
See, we can do what-about-ism too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ancient history huh? Guess that's why democrats got down on their hands and knees and defended bill clinton right? Oh and bill and hillary also went to epstine's private pedophile island nearly 50 times before he was arrested.
See, this shows just how ignorant of the world you really are. Maybe you should watch less TV, and pay more attention to the absolute shit-show going on in the UK, like people being arrested for mean tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I'm making a point. If you can't figure out why the democrats turned around, but are suddenly all over this you're simply ignorant of politics in general. Then again, shall we really go down the "what-about-ism" which shows that you really don't want to deal with issues that exist and were swept under the rug, that you did "what-about-ism" in the first place when you started screeching "TRUMP" oh boy, anything to deflect for the democrats huh? Maybe less john oliver for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Snopes is no longer to be fully trusted as they once were unfortunately, their reputation is now tarnished with some (deliberate) inaccuracies for the sake of political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
Source for that claim?
"source"
Ah, I see why you're confused: Snopes is not a source. Hope that helps.
Think of it as Breitbart but on crack.....
Snopes has a comments section that's at least an order of magnitude worse than Breitbart's? I'm pretty sure you'd have to invent a new physics model to make that a reality.
Re: (Score:3)
I like how you quoted everything in that big fat correction except the last sentence. Since it appears your computer can't handle a full paragraph worth of copy/paste, I'll paste it here for you:
"In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal."
Re: (Score:2)
The didn't "prove" that Clinton is guilty of graft, because Bill had a meeting with Loretta.
That last statement is not a "fact". It is an opinionated red-herring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is outrageous and so are most /. posts about it.
There still is some antidote being published though.
Today: https://consortiumnews.com/201... [consortiumnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The right's newfound Russia Defending Syndrome is beyond parody.
Re: (Score:2)
Who stands to win? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who stands to win by the Balkanization of the World's most stable organizations? When the EU, NATO, the USA and other large/multi-national organizations fall, Russia, still smarting from the fall of the USSR, can rise in prominence. Putin already tried putting Humpty back together, tearing down everyone else is a parallel strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia today has an economy the size of Australia...bunch of geldings reminiscing about their balls. The biggest threat they present is their technicians or engineers getting jobs in nations that are actual threats.
A less American centric NATO isn't a benefit to Russia. Rather the opposite. Russia's direct neighbors are LESS likely to tolerate their bullshit than America is.
Re:Who stands to win? (Score:4, Interesting)
Russia today has an economy the size of Australia...bunch of geldings reminiscing about their balls. The biggest threat they present is their technicians or engineers getting jobs in nations that are actual threats.
A less American centric NATO isn't a benefit to Russia. Rather the opposite. Russia's direct neighbors are LESS likely to tolerate their bullshit than America is.
And here I was thinking that he biggest threat Russia poses consists of ~7000 nuclear warheads.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing about that has changed. MAD remains in force. They aren't going to use them. At this point, it's not a practical geopolitical force.
Unless they get so broke they start selling nukes for vodka money.
Re: (Score:2)
That is their biggest threat, and it's serious. I still don't know whether you were thinking though. They also have a small economy and it is relevant. They're not some miracle power which is going to conquer Europe and take over the US.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but "encouraging" the tribalization of all the other powers has the same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
What, another one of those miracles?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, although Russia benefits from Brexit (due to it greatly damaging and weakening the EU) so does the UK.
So any Russian involvement is mostly irrelevant anyway.
The case for BREXIT (Score:2, Insightful)
I voted for BREXIT. Here's why
Outside the EU with a Canada type deal the UK would have control over
1) Immigration. Inside the EU we have to accept free movement of EU citizens. Not just to come to work, which I have no problem with, but also to claim benefits which I have a large problem with. And, more subtly, being inside the EU means we have to sign up to the ECHR. Article 8 of that makes it almost impossible to deport criminal, non EU aliens. Also if the UK is in the EU, it cannot refuse EU migrants and
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy your posts.
As long as you don't weaponize space...
I agree completely with your stand on Brexit, although I am not in the EU and so am an outside observer. My overall feeling of what was happening in the EU was that it was (is) a bureaucratic nightmare where everything had to be brought down to the "weakest link" in the union. The problem with humans and any of their constructs are that people will always do as little as possible, or get away with as much as they can (to paraphrase Plato). So if t
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for BREXIT.
Out of interest, what did you think would happen with the Irish border?
And, more subtly, being inside the EU means we have to sign up to the ECHR. Article 8 of that makes it almost impossible to deport criminal, non EU aliens.
Brexit has little ot do with that. ECHR is a separte thing and exiting the EU won't take us out of the ECHR. Also, Article 8, the right to a privacy?
And third, it's false. We can and do deport people all the time.
2) Trade. Inside the EU we need to have tariffs on non
Re: (Score:2)
Out of interest, what did you think would happen with the Irish border?
I figured it'd remain open, including free movement of (Irish) people, and customs provided at source and/or destination not at the border.
ECHR is a separte thing and exiting the EU won't take us out of the ECHR.
He maybe meant the ECJ. I'm keen that we no longer come under ECJ but also very keen that we remain within the European Convention on Human Rights as guided by ECHR.
The EU is not, Germany is. And it never happened
Nonetheless, we already have a full country. Being unable to prevent further immigration while Germany is wide fucking open to all and sundry would only lead to further pressure on housing, public services, w
Re: (Score:2)
He maybe meant the ECJ.
Great so he voted not knowing which institution was which.
I'm keen that we no longer come under ECJ
So, not keen on a trade deal with out largest export market then?
Nonetheless, we already have a full country. Being unable to prevent further immigration while Germany is wide fucking open to all and sundry would only lead to further pressure on housing, public services, wages, etc.
FFS we have no obligation to take in non EU citizens who have emigrated to Germany.
Stopped? No. https://w [express.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
So, not keen on a trade deal with out largest export market then?
We do not need the ECJ to rule on British law and governance to trade with Europe. Stop fucking pretending otherwise.
That article is a pile of doublespeak.
Well, it is The Express after all. But feel free to hunt out one of the others. Shit, you'll be telling me next that the EU's goal isn't a big European superstate.
Great, another delusional Brexiteer. Is there any other sort?
The cynical type with a dark sense of humour - something you're clearly lacking.
Re: (Score:3)
We do not need the ECJ to rule on British law and governance to trade with Europe. Stop fucking pretending otherwise.
we need whatever the EU will agree to. If they don't agree there is no deal and stop fucking pretending otherwise.
Well, it is The Express after all.
You posted it knowing it was doublespeak.
But feel free to hunt out one of the others.
I'm not going to scour the internet to back up your lies, thanks. You have to do the work if you want to have any credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
we need whatever the EU will agree to. If they don't agree there is no deal and stop fucking pretending otherwise.
You're acting as if 'no deal' is a bad thing.
It's a fucking marvellous thing. That shouldn't stop us looking to do better, but I'd much rather have no deal than a shit deal.
Re: (Score:3)
You're acting as if 'no deal' is a bad thing.
Yes. Everyone with half a brain realises it.
It's a fucking marvellous thing. That shouldn't stop us looking to do better, but I'd much rather have no deal than a shit deal.
Well that's pretty stupid. You ought to rather have no deal than something worse. Refusing to take something better than no deal out of self-defeating spite is precisely the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a Brexiter.
And what, precisely do you think will happen with the Irish border with no
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Everyone with half a brain realises it.
Well that's pretty stupid. You ought to rather have no deal than something worse.
Tell me, do you even realise you're contradicting yourself?
Refusing to take something better than no deal out of self-defeating spite is precisely the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a Brexiter.
That reflects on your own ability to judge people and understand them than it does on the people you're failing so miserably to understand.
Shit, I even made it easy for you and explicitly stated that we shouldn't avoid making a deal that's better than not having one.
And what, precisely do you think will happen with the Irish border with no deal?
Frankly exactly the fucking same as will happen with a deal. Free movement of Irish people, no barriers at the border.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, do you even realise you're contradicting yourself?
u wot m8?
We'll likely get a shit deal, but make no mistake: even a shit deal will be better for us than no deal.
You on the other hand would pick the worse path just out of spite. The EU aren't stupid: they will offer us something better than no deal, but it won't be very good.
That reflects on your own ability to judge people and understand them than it does on the people you're failing so miserably to understand.
Every Brexiter I've spoken to has b
Re: (Score:2)
You on the other hand would
Please, stop embarrassing yourself. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you haven't a hope of predicting what I would do.
Every Brexiter I've spoken to has been a fool.
Hmm. What's the common denominator here. Wait, maybe we should look at this another way.
It's like you haven't got a clue what a border even is!
If by that you mean that I don't have a closed mind about what a border must look like, then you're correct. A border between two countries can manifest in multiple forms, including being completely wide fucking open.
Tell me, how many customs officials do you see when you get out of a rubber dinghy on
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how many customs officials do you see when you get out of a rubber dinghy on Brighton Beach? Because that's our fucking border with France, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and sixteen other nearby countries.
Are you simple?
Even fucking North Korea has unguarded breaches and one border is covered in mines.
You've also apparently been ignoring the news that the border with Ireland has been a major sticking point. the only way of passing it was to promise regulatory compliance throughout the
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much what is happening - the UK and the EU will do a deal.
Oh you're one of those "brexit means brexit" morons. Saying "we will do a deal" is basically saying "something will happen".
No shit!
I didn't ask you *if* you thought something would happen I asked you what you thought WHAT would happen.
However you're a Brexiter. That means you didn't think about what would happen then and you seem incapable of doing so now.
Be specific because it's only the specifics that matter.
102 foreign criminals and illega
Re:The case for BREXIT (Score:5, Informative)
So, when the traffic is jammed from the chunnel to Machester waiting for customs, hows that going to work out for you.
There is no way the EU will allow the UK to stay in the Union without the EUCJ.
You brexiters really are a fairly dim bunch.
As an expat watching from outside the whole area, its depressing to see the UK shoot itself in the foot with a whole rack of shotguns.
The whole case for Brexit was based on lies, the list goes on, but lets start with 350 million pounds a week for the NHS.
Any deal the UK gets will be either devastatingly punative, or situation same as before, with the same problems, but now you will have no say at all in Europe.
Heres a question for you, when a deal is made, do you support a referendum be held to vote on accepting it?
Im betting you dont, as you know that having realised their mistake on not voting in the first place, the voters would reject this dribbling idiocy, that will reduce the UK to third world status.
You say the EU is not a country, ignoring the fact that when it comes to trade, they are all under the same laws, effectively acting as one country, sorry that doesnt suit your nutty narrative, or are you just a liar like most of the Brexshitters?
We saw the writing on the wall in 1970 and got the hell out of a country that has now exported its best and brightest, and is left with its worst and dumbest, just like you.
Hal, heading for the cliff edge, foot firmly jammed on the throttle, crying "there is no cliff"
Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yet another brexshit deusion, who has the biggest market by far again, oh yeh, the EU. They will male it hurt bad.
The UK tarrifs wuld be an ant trying to bite an elephant. Bluffing? Crickey, even for a brexshitter you are dumb as a bowling ball.
Lols at the AC, im not that smart, didnt go to uni, just not stupid enough to believe the likes the excerable BoJo and Farage.
Enjoy your life in a third world shithole.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
World Bank report here
http://documents.worldbank.org... [worldbank.org]
This paper analyzes the short-term fallout of trade in goods from Brexit, through potential changes in the trade policies of its main trading partners. We construct the Overall Trade Restrictiveness Index (OTRI) of the UKÃs major trading partners.2 Our analysis shows that in the absence of any trade agreement between the UK and the EU post-Brexit, facing the EU's Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs could cause the UK's export of goods to the EU to drop by 2 percent. The impact is not larger because the higher tariffs are placed on the less elastic products that the UK exports, while the lower tariffs are placed on the more elastic products that the UK exports
See also Ruth Lea on the likelihood of a deal and the fact that trading under WTO rules isn't all that bad in the absence of one
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/... [lse.ac.uk]
The prospects for a bespoke deal are, therefore, reasonably positive. But, if there is no bespoke agreement, then the default position would be that the UK, a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), would trade under WTO rules. The UK would, for example, face the EU Common External Tariff as EU exporters would face the tariffs adopted by the UK. There is, however, convincing evidence that trade can thrive under this regime, given favourable commercial circumstances. Preferential trade deals may oil the wheels of international commerce, but their importance should be kept in perspective. If the commercial circumstances are adverse, trade will not thrive, irrespective of special trade agreements.
...
In the absence of any agreement with the EU, imports from the EU will raise £12.9bn for the Treasury in duties, whilst UK exporters will face £5.2bn in total in tariffs on their exports to the EU.
WTO rules on subsidies provide sufficient flexibility for the Government to implement "horizontal" programmes to mitigate the impact of tariffs. Such programmes are economy-wide measures which are not specific to any identifiable industry, and are not tied in principle or in practice to compensating for the exact cost of tariffs on exports.
I.e. as much as you wish for the UK to be devastated because Brits had the temerity to want to have self government, it's very unlikely to happen.
I.e. it turns out independence isn't as expensive as people like you claimed it would be. Make no mistake though, even if it were I'd still suppo
Re: (Score:2)
Youre cherry picked quotes ignore the vast number of economists that predict a disasterous result for the UK.
Mumbo jumbo about self rule is simply laughable, it seems the likely result will be taxation without representation, unless you are happy with Northern Ireland becoming mired in violence once again.
However, brexshitters have little connection with reality, so Im guessing your right wing wet dream will continue.
A last question, are you willing for a final decision to go to another public vote, or do y
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.economicshelp.org/... [economicshelp.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Another delusional brexshit lie, they are not bluffing, they have all the power, you are a small part of their market, and they a large part of yours. The stupidity of the likes of you never ceases to amaze, its going to be fun watching the slide to third world shithole status.
Youre there already in the cricket, now the rest can catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
Awww, did I trigger AC snowflake. Didnt go to uni, not super smart, just not brexshit dumb as a bowling ball smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh, brexshitters hate the truth and reality. Ive met smarter mice.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live there but I certainly don't blame you for voting for it, I think it was the right decision.
I got a British passport through my parents, although considering what has hapenned to the place in the last 40 years since they left it? I kind of feel like the passport I have is mostly worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
1. We could have had immigration controls on EU citizens. Other countries did, limiting numbers for the first few years, and it worked. The Labour government chose not to.
Similarly, EU migrants can't claim benefits right away and can be asked to leave if they are unemployed for a few months. We choose not to enforce the latter at all.
Now that EU citizens are leaving, we don't have enough doctors and nurses. Will Brexiteers volunteer to wait for British staff so that the rest of us don't have to wait longer?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can immigrants even claim benefits?
Can't you tie that to being a UK national?
Not inside the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
In February the Commission started a furious row with Westminster after claiming that Cameron's plan to ban foreign migrants from receiving benefits unless they earn a minimum of £149 a week are illegal.
The Commission threatened to take the British Government to court after claiming it was illegal to define a "worker" according to the amount he or she earns is not compatible with EU law.
A source close to Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary hit back: "We're absolutely confident the changes are legal as well as right."
Inside the EU it's illegal to treat the citizens of other EU countries differently than you treat your own citizens.
Of course if the UK leaves the EU that ceases to be an issue. The Canada EU free trade deal doesn't force either party to accept citizens of the other coming to claim benefits.
Can we please stop pretending (Score:5, Insightful)
Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!
Darling: And, fortunately, one of *our* spies--
Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!
Re: (Score:2)
Amen! (great quote, BTW)
The hysteria plus the hypocrisy really is pathetic. Seeing the US in such a tizzy... the Russians are probably like, "that was the best 60 rubles we ever spent!"
Re: (Score:2)
CIA linked accounts (Score:3, Insightful)
How many CIA linked accounts were active on Facebook?
How many CIA linked accounts are still active on Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in other news (Score:2)
BBC was actively opinionating on US elections. BBC is not registered as a foreign agent. BBC is funded by the British government. Great Britain is not part of the US nor is it a US territory. This is open foreign interference in US elections which has been happening for close to 100 years.
Is this real? (Score:2)
Even the summary reads like an onion story. Is this a joke, parody, or do the editors truly want to share this news on this website with this audience? Some probably russian-related actors bought three ads for the amount of ONE dollar..? This is background noise. You can probably find even more adds of Pakistani people trying to influence the elections in Portugal
So sick of this Russia bullshit (Score:2)
What does Occams razor say?
Was there a huge coordinated group of people, effortlessly injecting fake news, creating stores, posting comments across the entire internet in an attempt to sway massive elections involving millions of people, many of which wouldn't even use a fucking computer.
OR
Did people just vote what they thought best?
The far left have gone off the bloody deep end. Don't tell me, it's *.white *.males fault some how?
Not really a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, the article says that they located Russians buying three ads totaling about a dollar.
That's not really a problem.
also, logically, Russians meddling in a British elections would not be treason-- treason would have to be by citizens of the same country.
Re: Not really a problem. (Score:2)
You really believe the amount. Seems absurdly low.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the article says that they located Russians buying three ads totaling about a dollar.
Because that's all they would have done. They'd have bought just those three ads then they'd have said to themselves, "Job done!". That's how government foreign agencies roll: they're all about individual initiative, not doing things in large, centralized, and bureaucratic ways.
All kidding aside, finding that first piece of evidence of an intelligence agency psy-ops effort is like seeing that first cockroach in your kitchen. Sure you step on it, but you don't assume you've got them all; you always assume
Re: Moscow Donald is going to prison for TREASON (Score:2, Insightful)
The new norm: When the election result doesn't suit the powers that be, blame the Russians.
What, the US and UK didnt think the same political manipulation that they use to keep poor countries poor would ever hey used on them?
Fuck em both.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's en vogue to blame Russia for all things non-liberal but this shit is getting ridiculous. Russia hacked the Election, Russia hacked Brexit, Russia killed your puppy, Russia forced Harvey Weinstein to jerk off in front of women, Russia made my wife cheat on me...
Fuck off all of you.
Yeah, but this is the problem of money in politics. A country like Russia has vast money to pour into a campaign like this, and there's no way average people can come up with a dollar to combat this insidious advertising campaign.
Seriously, though, someone's getting this upset over less than a dollar? The left is beyond parody at this point.
Re: Jesus, give it up (Score:2)
Vladimir Putin dropped his trousers and took a shit on my front lawn! There are witnesses!
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but wonder whether these Russian fake news accounts were online and active trying to get Roy Moore elected in the special senate race. Trump would have likely requested Putin to try to tip this one too in his favor.
No, Putin has re-allocated all his election rigging assets to the nor important task of rigging the upcoming Russian presidential elections.
Re:Anyone looking into the AL election? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right, Chechnya voted 99.8% for his party with 99.7% turnout, not long after Putin waged two wars against them. Think about how many votes Lincoln would get in the South the next election had he survived the assassination.
You're used to vote fraud meaning a few tens of invalid votes. On the other had, Russia didn't have a remotely fair election anywhere in its history: not by the tsars, not during the revolution, not by the soviets, a close shave by Yeltsin, then fully back to normal by Putin. Same in puppet countries they conquered (most recent example in Crimea).
“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.” -- Joseph Stalin
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the map, and you'll see that most of 'Bama is sparsely populated farmland. Look at the politics, and you have a candidate for the majority party being accused of child molestation. The minority party tends to do better is special elections, because the base for that party feels under siege. In this election, the minority party would be especially up in arms, in a special election which tends to have a VERY small turnout.
I wouldn't expect fraud to be needed for Jones to win.
Re: (Score:2)
As such, it means that you are way wrong.
Re: (Score:2)