|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 17 2017 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 22:47 Danglars wrote:On October 17 2017 21:05 bigmetazltank wrote:On October 17 2017 20:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 17 2017 20:51 bigmetazltank wrote:On October 17 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 17 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
Haha, this "Russia is evil and responsible for everything" conspiratard lot is hilarious. Soon we'll start blaming earthquakes in Haiti on Russia too. Listen, you said for months and months that despite all the evidence in the world Russia was of course not involved in meddling in the american elections and that it was all a hoax. You have earned the right to shut up on the matter. People who don't take Russia seriously are literal idiots. Its not a conspiracy that Russia is abusing social media to sow chaos among all western democracies. Its not a secret that an Antifa twitter page encouraging violence was found to be a sockpuppet tweeting in Vladivostok. Its not a secret that a significant number of Bernie and Stein advertising on Facebook were funded by Russia to target the Bernie or Bust demographic. Its not a secret that most of Roy Moore's tens of thousands of recent Twitter followers were bots. Its not a secret that a good number of people pushing divisive hashtags regarding kneeling/standing for the flag were Russian bots. And that's only the last month in the United States alone. We're completely ignoring Russia funding practically every anti-EU political party out in Europe. If American conservatives think Russia is their friend or are basically turning a blind eye simply because they helped Hillary Clinton lose (Clinton to LegalLord is Obama to Trump), they're going to be in for a shock in the future. They're not your friend and the decline of the USA is only beneficial for them. People shouldn't think that this is because Russia is evil. They are simply doing what every country does but more effectively. Its textbook hostile diplomatic foreign policy. Confuse and weaken your rivals without being aggressive. Cause chaos while insulating yourself from any consequences. I can't understand why people would think this isn't happening, it obviously is. Which is a problem for the USA because a good number of posters in this thread think that Russia is ineffective at worst and completely benign at best. They're completely resistant/dismissive to the idea that it might actually be an issue and I have no goddamn idea why. You can believe that Russia is actively interfering with American political life (which is pretty damn serious if you ask me) and believe that Hillary Clinton is a dumbass arrogant bitch...these things are actually mutually exclusive. I can't see how that position on Russia is one anyone can hold in good faith unless you literally don't read the news or only get your news from Fox News. Heck, I think even Breitbart has reported Russian interference. Even if we ignore all the evidence from the USA and Europe, its within the interest of a major geopolitical power to do that. Its literally same as believing that phone companies don't astroturf on tech forums. You have to be more naive than a week old puppy to hold that position in good faith. Shit, Teamliquid only has a tech support subforum and we've had our own share of Samsung astroturfers. Don’t blow up their influence and reach and it’s very easy to understand how Russia sowed discord. You’re inventing opposition because you want people at your level of hysteria. Danglar, if Russia had meddled in, colluded, manipulated and worked the way it has to get Clinton elected and had succeeded (by a tiny margin) you would have gone batshit crazy. And you would be right. If you don't want to be honest with people here at least be ho est with yourself. The fact that your guy won doesn't make acceptable the fact that was has happen is incredibly serious and scary for american demicracy, and you should recognize it. It's intellectual integrity 101.
If there wasn’t an investigation following a hack and leak, I would. But right now you got people screaming about $100k in Facebook ads like Clinton’s $1.2 billion was absolutely eclipsed. It’s pathetic and you should be ashamed.
|
|
|
If you had read up on the subject or on any of the articles I posted in this thread about Facebook, the reach of just 100K is staggering when used in targeted ads. The numbers of views and people that 100K reach was shocking. In the millions of interactions. And that is the 100K we publicly know about right now. The power and reach of Facebook is staggering, especially when it comes to complete fictional stories being played off as news.
But again, your goal isn’t discussion. It is to call people hysterical and kill the discussion. Your tactics are old hat now.
|
On October 17 2017 22:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 17 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
Haha, this "Russia is evil and responsible for everything" conspiratard lot is hilarious. Soon we'll start blaming earthquakes in Haiti on Russia too. Listen, you said for months and months that despite all the evidence in the world Russia was of course not involved in meddling in the american elections and that it was all a hoax. You have earned the right to shut up on the matter. That's not what I said, that's what you would have liked me to have said. Your reading comprehension needs work. But by all means, do enjoy this whole "all these bad things in the world - it's just Russia!" deflection. It makes for a nice feel-good narrative, to be able to blame a foreign devil rather than yourself for a world that just doesn't act the way you wish it did. You certainly wouldn't be the only one who likes to peddle that crap.
It's not all or nothing LL. There are multiple reasons why trump is president right now, and Russia IS one of them. Am I saying that Russia is an evil entity for doing something in their own interest, and that the US doesn't engage in such behavior all over the world? No. It's your reading comprehension that needs work, because your interpretation of OP's post into "all bad things in the world are russia's fault" is hilariously hypocritical.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it.
|
On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it.
"But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign.
That's not what I'm saying though.
Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash.
But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition?
|
Disgusting.
President Donald Trump took aim at President Barack Obama in a radio interview on Tuesday, suggesting that his predecessor didn’t call John Kelly after the retired general’s son died in Afghanistan.
After claiming that previous presidents had not made phone calls to the families of fallen soldiers in a press conference on Monday, Trump has been called out by many on cable news — as well as by former Obama officials — for the demonstrable lie.
But Trump, in a very Trumpian fashion, is doubling down. In a radio interview with Fox Newser Brian Kilmeade Tuesday morning, Trump was asked about his Monday remarks, and said: “As far as other presidents, I don’t know, you could ask Gen. Kelly, did he get a call from Obama? I don’t know what Obama’s policy was.”
Kelly’s 27-year-old son Robert died after he stepped on a landmine in Afghanistan in 2010. Kelly, who now serves as Trump’s chief of staff, was serving as a lieutenant general at the time.
Listen above, via Fox News Radio
www.mediaite.com
|
LegalLord you forget that https://cambridgeanalytica.org/ was behind Trump's push.
On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition?
It also depends on the marketer. I'm sure there were at least 50 people behind this push where the $100million was paying probably for a team of five.
|
On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition?
well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail.
so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap.
geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy.
|
On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition?
Because one of the things we have found out since the election is false, made up news drives more engagement by a large margin. It is way easier to get people to share and engage with an article if you just lie and tell them exactly what they want to hear. And all this fake information was being parroted by Trump and his camp.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Efficient use of data. Sounds like good work was done.
|
On October 18 2017 00:14 LegalLord wrote:Efficient use of data. Sounds like good work was done.
To peddle lies and false claims, mixed in with just enough facts to keep people interested.
|
On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition?
Diminishing returns, I'd imagine, but I'm not an expert on such matters. Also false information spreads much faster than real, and negative message is more appealing than a positive one. And I don't think anyone is arguing that the 100k in FB adds were the only factor that contributed to Clinton's loss, but they might have had a significant enough impact to make a difference in the election's results.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2017 00:12 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition? well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail. so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap. geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy.
Interesting thing is that that's exactly how some organizations advertise.
|
I think we should all remember that the argument isn’t that it turned the tide in the election. That isn’t’ the point of the discussion. The argument is that the tactic was far reach and had an impact on the election. And seems to have an equal impact on other democratic states. That free and informed elections cannot function while this type of disinformation campaign is going on.
|
On October 18 2017 00:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 00:12 brian wrote:On October 18 2017 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 00:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it. "But it wasn't that much collusion" is going to be a bad look when it comes out that Cambridge Analytica was pumping geotargeting data to a Russian psyops campaign. That's not what I'm saying though. Trump is a shitbag. His surrogates are shitbags. Shitbags can be bought and coerced into betraying their country for a small tinkle of cash. But if $100k in ads is so powerful, why is $100Ms of cash not completely and utterly destroying all opposition? well, one reason is that we have laws about what ads a campaign can run. if a campaign ran an ad like those we’re seeing in the compromised facebook ads, they’d go to jail. so they just can’t afford that kind of efficiency. lying comes cheap. geico spends billions in ads. they could spend a lot less if their ads could claim their competitors were stealing from their customers’ grandmas backed up with falsified ‘proof’ and people would eat that shit up like candy. Interesting thing is that that's exactly how some organizations advertise.
and i bet it’s super effective before they wind up in jail. unfortunately russians have no fear of this consequence, so their money stretches a lot further.
|
The 100$k on Facebook is merely what's already public. There's a several dozen page document floating around listing all the suspicious circumstantial evidence of collusion and weird meetings. (No, I'm not talking about the dossier).
Also, hello, email hacks? Podesta and the DNC.
|
On October 17 2017 23:54 LegalLord wrote:
If $100k on Facebook beat out $1B on campaigning then we really should just applaud Putin's efficiency and wonder why no one else ever thought of it.
If the American media/DNC response campaign of illegitimacy was predicted, he's a damn whiz.
But I don't think far-sighted Russians could've seen the size and scope of that response.
|
The response campaign is to Russia's detriment because they can't get any concessions. There's been no movement on sanctions despite the Trump administration's desire to do so. The response campaign is American democracy at work - checking the powers of the president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
