HN Gopher Feed (2017-09-06) - page 2 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016
election
104 points by aaronbrethorst
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/facebook-says-it-sold-po...t-sold-political-ads-to-russian-company-during-2016-election/2017/09/06/32f01fd2-931e-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html
___________________________________________________________________
chvid - 59 minutes ago
In the context of the 2016 election 100.000 usd is a tiny amount.
akhilcacharya - 27 minutes ago
In the context of web ads it's not insignificant.
Ajedi32 - 1 hours ago
Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which
are meant to prevent this sort of thing?For example, let's assume a
foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or
attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt
about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds
anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or
systems currently in place which would stop them from doing that?
vkou - 1 hours ago
And, as a related question - should there be? What about a
foreign corporation? A foreign corporation with a domestic
presence? A domestic corporation? None of these groups are
beholden to the public interest.
pamqzl - 1 hours ago
Or just a foreign individual?I'm a foreign individual who went
around making comments on the US election... what's the
difference between me doing it privately and a company doing
it?
LeifCarrotson - 47 minutes ago
As much as America would like to think their laws apply
across the globe, they don't actually have jurisdiction over
you. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from talking
about the campaign.They do have jurisdiction over the
candidate and campaign you endorse, though. If you contacted
your candidate and offered them money or services in the hope
that they could use your help to get elected, and they
accepted your offer they would be guilty. You wouldn't
be.Unfortunately, it seems like a fairly impotent law if all
you have to do as a foreign national with an interest in the
election is to support a candidate without their endorsement.
dragonwriter - 5 minutes ago
> As much as America would like to think their laws apply
across the globe, they don't actually have jurisdiction
over you.You might want to check with Humberto ?lvarez-
Macha?n (acquitted, sure, but not because the law didn't
apply to him) or Manuel Noriega about that.
makomk - 45 minutes ago
Well, it's important to bear in mind that most of these ads
supposedly didn't back or attack a particular candidate, and that
banning foreign funding of political and social activism of this
kind would be a very Russian thing to do. Claiming they're
foreign agents is one of the Russian government's favourite
tactics for raiding and shutting down inconvenient political NGOs
and activists. Frankly, I wouldn't entirely put it past them to
fund these ads partly to bait out something they could use to
justify their own domestic crackdowns and spin US criticism as
hypocrasy.
AaronFriel - 1 hours ago
There are laws against foreign nationals to provide a "thing of
value" to a US political campaign. This is obviously a difficult
thing to tease out. My source on this is Eugene Volokh, a law
professor and First Amendment attorney:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...The fundamental question then is: was this
intentional on behalf of the foreign agent to provide a "thing of
value" to a US political campaign, and/or did a political
candidate or campaign solicit this?
sigmar - 1 hours ago
My understanding is no, this is legal. But this would be illegal
if a U.S. political campaign knew about and facilitated these ad
buys, as then it would be a contribution. Source:
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Pro...
JamesCoyne - 1 hours ago
The Federal Election Commission would have something to say:"The
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign
national from contributing, donating or spending funds in
connection with any federal, state, or local election in the
United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also
unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to
solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities
may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment." [0]The definition
of "foreign national" is quite broad.How this works with regards
to PAC contributions is unclear to me.[0]
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
LeifCarrotson - 54 minutes ago
> Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these
activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.Who are
these "persons"?It can't logically be the foreign nationals who
are attempting to help a campaign. They're not under the
jurisdiction of US federal law.It also can't logically be the
candidates. Otherwise, the obvious tactic would be to provide
overt, unrequested aid to the opposition candidate(s) and send
them all to jail.I'm not sure it can be Facebook or other
Internet sides. It is true that Facebook is a US company, but
the content on their sites is protected under the DMCA safe
harbor exemption. And then the law wouldn't handle the case of
sites not under US ownership.FECA dates back to the 70s, and it
doesn't seem to do a good job of handling the globalization of
the Internet. If someone from overseas looked at the facts
themselves and, without talking to a candidate, just plastered
Google and Facebook and YouTube and Twitter with endorsement of
one candidate and criticism of another, is it reasonable to try
to stop them?
dragonwriter - 8 minutes ago
> It can't logically be the foreign nationals who are
attempting to help a campaign. They're not under the
jurisdiction of US federal law.Criminal violations of US laws
whose prohibition is not expressly territorially restricted
that occur outside of the US are successfully prosecuted in
US courts with some frequency. Bringing people before the
court for prosecution may be challenging where extradition
isn't an option, but outright kidnapping from a foreign
country or even full-scale military military invasion to do
so have occurred.
elipsey - 1 hours ago
TFA:"Under federal law and Federal Election Commission
regulations, both foreign nationals and foreign governments are
prohibited from making contributions or spending money to
influence a federal, state or local election in the United
States. The ban includes independent expenditures made in
connection with an election.Those banned from such spending
include foreign citizens, foreign governments, foreign political
parties, foreign corporations, foreign associations and foreign
partnerships, according to the FEC."
[deleted]
[deleted]
ThomPete - 8 minutes ago
"Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales,
totaling $100,000, to a Russian ?troll farm? with a history of
pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said."Excuse my
ignorance but isn't $100K chicken feed?
rocktronica - 52 minutes ago
Regardless of legality, it will be interesting to see how this is
spun if/when Zuckerberg runs for public office.
pjc50 - 1 hours ago
I guess Citizens United doesn't just apply to citizens.
Shivetya - 1 hours ago
Citizens United was a good ruling because Congress and both
political parties have been doing their damn best to limit the
number of ways money can get into politics unless it is to
them.How? Simple, donations under $200 per person do not need be
revealed until they exceed that number. Also taking foreign
donations without proper tracking and the ease of generating new
cc numbers / names works as well. However the number one method
they use is exploiting campaign fundraising events where they can
rake in millions. With the clout and friends in business how can
a third party or anyone compete against it?So while there are
issues with money in politics all attempts to limit it have
simply been done to protect the two parties who hold near
absolute power.
sumoboy - 1 hours ago
Why would Facebook discriminate where ad $ revenue is coming from?
Twitter, Instagram, doesn't matter, money is money.
dragonwriter - 1 hours ago
Well, first, there's law prohibiting foreign-sponsored activity
of this sort, and prohibits assisting foreign parties in
violating the prohibition.And, second, they were channelled
through false-flag accounts and pages, which violates Facebook's
policies regarding authenticity.
eroo - 1 hours ago
Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal
law
trhway - 59 minutes ago
and if that Russian company was an agent of Russian government
( 101 chances out of 100 that it was, i.e. any reasonable
person would think so :) then FB doing that company's bidding
was acting as an agent of Russian government, and doing so
without registration as such a foreign government agent sounds
to me (not a lawyer though) like a violation of another item of
the federal law. At least it looks like doing such thing was
a violation before the current administration - now they seem
to accept "retroactive" registrations, at least from their own
folks - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-
campaig...
havetocharge - 46 minutes ago
You can take your assertions further -- every Russian,
national or not, is an agent of the Russian government with
101% certainty at that. Furthermore, everyone who associates
with Russians is an agent as well, with a reasonably high
degree of confidence.
foota - 1 hours ago
For the seller of the ad time or for the buyer?
spaceflunky - 1 hours ago
>Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US
federal lawWRONG. Nothing prohibits foreign entities from
buying their own political ads.http://fortune.com/2017/07/12
/us-election-meddling-online-ad...
[deleted]
bduerst - 49 minutes ago
You're both right. Sounds like a law that hasn't been
updated yet for online ads.>The laws that prohibit foreign
nationals from spending money to influence U.S. elections do
not prevent them from lawfully buying some kinds of political
ads on Facebook and other online networks
dragonwriter - 32 minutes ago
While in one sense true, the Fortune article seems to be
reading the word ?television? (or perhaps ?audio or
audiovisual content?) into the phrase ?cable, broadcast, or
satellite? as a distribution mechanism when it is not, in
fact, present where that phrase is used in FECA, as amended
(FECA does have radio and TV-specific provisions, and they
expressly name radio and TV, and they aren't the ones of
interest here.) Absent case law to the contrary, which is not
cited, it would seem by it's plain language to cover most
real electronic media including the internet (advertising on
a isolated RFC 1149 network would not be covered, of course,
nor would ads in plenty of pre-telegraph ?old media? like
dead-tree-only newspapers.)
Clubber - 37 minutes ago
>Most of the ads focused on pumping politically divisive issues
such as gun rights and immigration fears, as well as gay rights and
racial discrimination.When I read this I thought that this is what
the US press does every single day wither it's WaPo or Limbaugh.
It's all about selling fear and division. There's no longer nuance,
no longer presenting both sides of an argument. It's all this is
good or this is evil.
dymk - 1 hours ago
Facebook's blog post on the matter:
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations-...
baybal2 - 1 hours ago
... and they do this while the were openly taking money from
Russian/KGB campaigners round 2010, dispatching campaign
consultants and overall trreating them as first tier clients.
Same was true of Google in Russia, while they still had hopes of
somehow greasing hands with the establishment. They evacuated the
most valuable staff out of Russia around 2015 to Switzerland,
when they finally gave up. I still do remember them quitely
delisting online resources with corruption exposures circa 2007,
that were reappearing with simple reversal of word order.They
may've been just "probing where the water is shallow" in 2010
with "seemingly innocent" think tank drivel and consulting buys,
and then went full throttle when it did matter the most.American
top C-Levels, officials, 3 letter agency employees, and other
American beau monde all have that "smart, sophisticated,
brilliant, but damn naive" note in their personalities. All such
types do remind me of people who are "trying to win in a casino,"
while having "I know what I'm doing" look on their face. They
can't win there, it not their league.To prevail, Americans need
to overhaul their political establishment and institutes of power
with virtuous competent people
IdontRememberIt - 1 hours ago
I am in Switzerland and I keep seeing suggestions for "Anti trump"
groups (None of my friends are part of them). Why?
balance_factor - 1 hours ago
As it is rarely mentioned in the US media, I'd just note that the
US pretty openly interferes in Russian elections, and has been
doing so for a long time. It's curious this is virtually never
mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia involving itself in
US elections.There are many tentacles to the US octopus, for
starters you can look at an organization created by and funded by
the US congress, the soi disant National Endowment for Democracy.
They have a conference opening next week containing some of the
people the US has been using to interfere in Russian elections (
https://www.ned.org/events/prospects-for-russias-democratic-... ).
dragonwriter - 20 minutes ago
> I'd just note that the US pretty openly interferes in Russian
electionsIf Russia had meaningful elections to interfere in to
start with, that would concern me a little bit as an American,
and a lot if I was a Russian.Since Russia doesn't, however...
CardenB - 18 minutes ago
This is because it's usually discussed with the idea that Russia
had actually compromised electronic voting systems in the US.
That's different from trying to strengthen a political campaign
in another country.
spaceseaman - 59 minutes ago
> virtually never mentionedI (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in
every comments section relating to Russia's involvement in the
U.S. election. Almost as if it's a common talking point.Reminds
me a lot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhataboutismEDIT: ...
And so a conversation was effectively derailed and nothing was
gained. Arguing about the validity of Whataboutism or who is
doing it isn't the point. It's a deflection technique that works
in spite of you calling it out.
raquo - 51 minutes ago
It's the line that Putin and Lavrov (foreign minister) have
been pushing since forever: "you westerners are no better than
us, stop shaming us for the shady things that we do". That's an
easy way to keep your population happy ? tell them that life is
no better in other countries. Corruption is everywhere, police
state is everywhere, etc. And most Russians believe that.
bitJericho - 16 minutes ago
Well it's true in the us, Russia, china, Australia. That's
not everywhere but that is quite a lot of ground.
Retric - 4 minutes ago
Russia does not have actual meaningful elections. That's a
fairly fundamental difference.
marksomnian - 28 minutes ago
Whataboutwhataboutism-ism.
aleyan - 4 minutes ago
> WhataboutismI (anecdotally) hear this tidbit in every
comments section relating to Russia. Almost as if it's a common
talking point.Reminds me a lot of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
mc32 - 49 minutes ago
Sure, but what about it? Does it not invalidate the basis for
complaining, or at least the moral high ground, if you do the
same thing? Of course on some level it can be a legalistic
tool where while you might have done something illegal you can
sue the other party for having done the same, like a
countersuit.I'm almost willing to bet that if Merkel was found
to have interfered on behalf of Bernie, we'd hear some musings,
but not nearly the vehemence we hear about alleged Russian
interference (that particular accusation seems to have become
muted recently, however).
Clubber - 28 minutes ago
We discovered Merkel was spied on by the NSA. I believe she
had her phone tapped. That was pretty big but it blew over.
stevenwoo - 1 minutes ago
On the one hand, a better beef for Russia would be the US
military intervention on Soviet soil for the anti Bolshevik
forces in 1917, on the other hand, that's a incredibly long
time to hold a grudge/cold war, though Iran's theocracy looks
like it's going to milk US interference in their country for a
couple more generations, too.The other side of this is Russian
involvement in the US/Western Europe seems to follow many of
the key points of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics where
Putin has already though direct military action or political
involvement, accomplished the goals of distancing the UK from
Europe, made progress on retaking Ukraine, allied with Iran,
gotten a windfall with Turkey being run by an authoritarian and
distancing itself from the West, and diminished the US in the
eyes of the world with the election of Trump.
CaptSpify - 25 minutes ago
Interesting as this is the first I've heard about it (anecdotal
as well).Though I admit most of my news on this comes from non-
comment based news sources (tv, etc)
dclowd9901 - 16 minutes ago
The US has a long and sordid history in interfering in the
political affairs of other countries.That said, our
government doesn't subjugate dissenters or lock up
journalists. They let our corporations do that.
knz - 4 minutes ago
The US alone? Or every major political power in human
history?And if you don't believe Russia is actively running
interference in other countries via "little green men" etc
then I'd encourage you to read more about the current
political affairs of nation states like Ukraine or Georgia.
Or about a little historical event called the iron curtain
and it's associated revolutions.Many horrible things have
been done in the name of Western hegemony but let's not
pretend these actions occur without provocation from other
geopolitical actors.
korzun - 21 minutes ago
In most cultures, you don't criticize somebody for something
while doing the exact opposite.Whataboutism does not apply to
90% of conversations but don't tell that to people who think
they are smart by bringing it up.Whataboutism:A) 'You
interfered with our elections!!' B) 'You bombed a children
hospital! What about that?'NOT Whataboutism:A) 'You interfered
with our elections!! YOU HACKED OUR ELECTIONS!!! PUTIN ORDERED
TO STEAL OUR VOTES!!! B) 'That's great, you have been doing the
same thing for decades all over the world. Mind shutting up?'
bllguo - 9 minutes ago
Sorry, but I fail to see the difference between your
contrived examples. And I'm amused that you think people are
being pretentious for bringing up "whataboutism," when the
term itself is arguably a colloquialism.
jmull - 2 minutes ago
You make a poor point.First, your definition of whataboutism
doesn't jibe with ones in common use, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism.Second, your "NOT"
example only works if A and B are equivalent, which,
obviously they are not for several reasons. (the tactics and
secrecy are different as are the elections.Actually, you make
a very poor point, when I consider the the insult you hurled
at someone for daring to bring up whataboutism -- a term
apparently invented to describe the tactic of deflecting
criticism of Russian actions, which is exactly this
situation.Poor show.
raquo - 55 minutes ago
Well, both Putin and the US have good-to-them reasons to
interfere in each others elections. And to interfere in Russian
elections.On a serious note, the reason you don't hear about it
is because US interference in Russia, whatever that was, didn't
come even close to turning Russian elections.
havetocharge - 51 minutes ago
So, if I was to draw a parallel, murder is only bad if it is
successful?
dragonwriter - 16 minutes ago
> murder is only bad if it is successful?If it?s nobody gets
killed, it?s not murder. I think the principle that attempted
murder, unsuccessful conspiracy to commit murder, or
soliciting a murder which does not actually occur are lesser
offenses than murder is fairly well established.
raquo - 42 minutes ago
First, that's not much of a parallel. The morality of generic
murder is clearcut, the morality of interference with other
countries elections is not. Not everyone subscribes to prime
directive. As a Russian I personally appreciate that someone
is at least trying to instill some positive change in
Russia.Morals aside, you said> It's curious this is virtually
never mentioned amidst all the accusations of Russia
involving itself in US elections.I told you why. Because
whatever the US did was not effective, and it's not as
newsworthy as things that are happening in the US and
affecting Americans.
toephu2 - 41 minutes ago
That is somewhat true, I believe attempted murder sentences
are lighter than actual murder sentences.
jonny_eh - 50 minutes ago
So? This isn't about morally shaming Russia.
fabrika - 48 minutes ago
In fact we don't have any elections. Opposition leaders are
banned or get killed (Navalny, Nemtsov). The opposition is only
allowed to have marginal media (Echo of Moscow, TV Rain). An
opposing media that becomes popular gets seized by loyal
oligarchs supported by corrupt courts (NTV, Lenta.ru, RBC).
owebmaster - 24 minutes ago
And no color revolution took place in Russia.
Retra - 2 minutes ago
Hypocrisy is still not a fallacy.
guelo - 43 minutes ago
Somebody else that manipulates and corrupts Russian elections:
Putin.
gfosco - 40 minutes ago
I bet we spend a lot more on it than the maximum $150k discussed
in the article. Talk about a nothing-burger.
roywiggins - 34 minutes ago
Russia doesn't have free or fair elections anyway- how could the
US possibly corrupt it any more than Putin cronies personally
controlling almost all domestic Russian media?
joveian - 13 minutes ago
The US had a major role in creating the environment that lead
to Putin gaining power, with a much heavier hand than anything
Russia is accused of at this point. Matt Taibbi had a good
article on this a little while
ago:https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-
what-d...
akhilcacharya - 22 minutes ago
That's the benefit of being a sole superpower. There are double
standards here for a reason.
Zhenya - 1 hours ago
Can we see what the ads were? Can we see how they were targeted?Am
I missing this somewhere?
[deleted]
chasing - 1 hours ago
Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the
Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.
malchow - 1 hours ago
...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs
than it did on charitable grants. [1][1]
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...
rhcom2 - 1 hours ago
93.91/100 from Charity Navigator, spending 86.9% on programs
and services.
aaronbrethorst - 1 hours ago
Charitable grants are not a major focus of the
Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money
to carry out its own humanitarian programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation"Luxury"
sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back
up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm
cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked
PDF).
malchow - 25 minutes ago
"On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the
foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and
employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office
expenses; $9.2 million on ?conferences, conventions and
meetings?; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5
million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll,
but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the
foundation.In all, the group reported $84.6 million in
?functional expenses? on its 2013 tax return and had more
than $64 million left over..." [1][1]
https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-
found...So of $140M raised tax-free in 2013, half was spent
keeping the operation going that very year.
dragonwriter - 25 minutes ago
Aside from the editorializing about "luxury", that's because
it is a direct-action charity, not an pass-through charity
that gives grants to other charities while skimming off the
top for administrative expenses. So, yes, it spends more on
travel (and lots of other things) than on charitable grants,
because grants aren't the mechanism by which it's charitable
purpose is realized.
esaym - 1 hours ago
How is that not the same thing?
chasing - 1 hours ago
Well, it's confusing because both include the word "Clinton,"
but one is a human being who, amongst other things, ran for
President in 2016. The other is a non-profit humanitarian
organization. Two different things.
xtian - 1 hours ago
Good grief.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8825813
pamqzl - 1 hours ago
> non-profit humanitarian organizationWhich just happens to
pay the Clintons' bills every time they feel like
travelling anywhere, and direct money to whoever the
Clintons want to do favours for.The election is over, we
can all admit that the Clinton Foundation is pretty stinky.
GabrielF00 - 1 hours ago
They've also helped millions of people get affordable
AIDS medication.http://www.politifact.com/global-
news/statements/2016/jun/15...
takeda - 57 minutes ago
Don't want to get into Trump vs Hilary debate, but don't
you think it is a bit strange that nearly every rich
individual has their own foundation? A foundation that
most people don't know what is responsible for. Most of
the time you don't hear it doing much either.Why for
example some political entities donate large amount of
money to these foundations instead of the ones that are
proven to do something (like red cross).It feels like
perhaps those foundations are there just to exploit a tax
loophole, and that they donate once in a while to
specific cause to satisfy their legal requirements.
[deleted]
AaronFriel - 1 hours ago
That's probably true, but there's very little evidence of
donations to the foundation being used to elicit favors,
and there's a smidge of evidence that such attempts
failed. Example:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-
pol-clinton-donor-chag...
dforrestwilson - 1 hours ago
Pretty snarky when we all know the lines are blurrier than
your comment suggests.Here's one example where the Clinton
Foundation provided access to government officials by
corporations seeking favors: http://freebeacon.com/issues
/emails-clinton-foundation-donor...Denis O?Brien has a
checkered past of journalistic obstruction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_O%27BrienAccess. The
Clinton Foundation sells access, from which the Clinton
family benefits.I don't see the Gates Foundation pulling
this, do you?
scottmf - 1 hours ago
It's a non-issue and you're really wasting your time responding
to these attempts to suggest "both candidates were as corrupt
as each other" in the 2016 election:"Nonetheless. looking at
the Clinton Foundation?s donor list, Saudi Arabia gave between
$10 million and $25 million. But the foundation reported the
Saudi money in December 2008, and the amount hasn?t changed
since. Clinton Foundation spokesman Brian Cookstra pointed out
that Saudi Arabia did not give to the foundation while
Secretary Clinton was at the State Department."Why people
genuinely believe we should focus on this, rather than Donald
Trump's ongoing business ties to Russia?and all of the blatant
lies about it?I'll never know.
teddy_r_bear - 1 hours ago
A fund run by their daughter...http://time.com/3736221/chelsea-
clinton-global-initiative-hi......that has been accused of
sometimes using the foundation as a type of slush
fund...http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-
foundation......and doesn't always do what it
promises...https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics
/hillary-clint...
shostack - 1 hours ago
This is likely just the tip of the digital advertising iceberg with
all of this for FB and other advertising giants like Google and
Twitter. According to this Wired article[1] Giles-Parscale, the
agency behind a lot of the Trump election digital efforts "took in
some $90 million, the vast majority of which went toward buying
Facebook ads for the campaign."A Reddit user who "was working at
the other end of this pipeline that is selling digital adspace to
consulting firms" (according to his post) also posted some very
detailed insights as to how funds might have been laundered into
clean political donations via small agencies and PACs in the US via
digital media buys.Here's his follow-up post from three months ago
which has more info and links to his original post--really worth
reading all of it, his original post, the subsequent threads, etc.:
https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6alzm0/fbi_confirm...So
the issue is less about ads purchased directly from Russia or by
illegitimate companies with Russian IPs or anything of the sort as
FB addressed in this statement. That is a drop in the bucket
compared to the dollar amounts that might have been spent as part
of the rest of the Trump media buys. The bigger story may actually
be more about Russian (and other funds) funneled through small
legit digital agencies and PACs (or through Parscale) in the US who
then did ad buys driving for Trump donations which he was then able
to legally use as campaign funds (or for enriching himself as the
Reddit user hypothesizes).There are likely FB sales reps and others
there who have some insight into the ad campaign objectives,
targeting details, and the source of that targeting data. The last
bit is interesting there because it is still not fully understood
how Cambridge Analytica plugged into all of this, and how they
obtained their detailed targeting data. Mercer and Bannon both have
direct Cambridge Analytica ties[2].All of this is to say that I
don't think the full story is being unearthed with these data
points that FB shared. And I'd be willing to bet that FB sales reps
who dealt with these accounts during the election know quite a bit
more about what actually went on. However we may never know how
deep the rabbit hole really goes, how dirty such funds might
actually be, or how much FB, Google and Twitter really profited
from the election (and ongoing campaigns).I want to conclude this
by stating that I am just posting my own personal thoughts based on
a variety of articles and Reddit posts, and I don't purport to have
any inside insight into these companies operations beyond my fairly
deep experience in the online advertising space and my
understanding of how that operates, so this is largely speculation
and you should come to your own conclusions. That said, it is
hardly outside the realm of possibility at this point to imagine
how this sort of scheme could work, and how all of the players
involved might have had strong financial incentives to not rock the
boat.[1] https://www.wired.com/story/trump-russia-data-parscale-
faceb...[2] http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-target-dem-voters-
kushn...