To Stir Discord in 2016, Russians Turned Most Often to Facebook
Source: The New York Times
By SHEERA FRENKEL and KATIE BENNERFEB. 17, 2018
SAN FRANCISCO In 2014, Russians working for a shadowy firm called the Internet Research Agency started gathering American followers in online groups focused on issues like religion and immigration. Around mid-2015, the Russians began buying digital ads to spread their messages. A year later, they tapped their followers to help organize political rallies across the United States.
Their digital instrument of choice for all of these actions? Facebook and its photo-sharing site Instagram.
The social network, more than any other technology tool, was singled out on Friday by the Justice Department when prosecutors charged 13 Russians and three companies for executing a scheme to subvert the 2016 election and support Donald J. Trumps presidential campaign. In a 37-page indictment, officials detailed how the Russians repeatedly turned to Facebook and Instagram, often using stolen identities to pose as Americans, to sow discord among the electorate by creating Facebook groups, distributing divisive ads and posting inflammatory images.
While the indictment does not accuse Facebook of any wrongdoing, it provided the first comprehensive account from the authorities of how critical the companys platforms had been to the Russian campaign to disrupt the 2016 election. Facebook and Instagram were mentioned 41 times, while other technology that the Russians used were featured far less. Twitter was referenced nine times, YouTube once, and electronic payments company PayPal 11 times.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/technology/indictment-russian-tech-facebook.html
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,447 posts)Makes sense.
sinkingfeeling
(51,474 posts)anti-Clinton memes, that I deleted it. Will never go on Facebook again.
dalton99a
(81,599 posts)Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (left) receives a T-shirt from Facebook CEO
Skittles
(153,202 posts)rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)I made one years back because friends from school kept badgering me about it. When I was looking through it and saw how vapid, insipid, and utterly worthless most of the "content" was, I gave up in disgust. It promotes narcissism, the "look at me, look how wonderful I am!" syndrome. When I saw posts like "1000 likes and I'll take my kids to Disneyland!!!" I was utterly floored. How about being a decent parent and, if you have the means, taking your kids to Disneyland so they'd have a good time? Why do you need 1000 likes?
I don't flatter myself that my life is interesting enough for anyone to give a damn about it. Hell, even my mother gets bored when we have our phone conversations.
It baffles me that people are suddenly discovering that Facebook is awful on a fundamental level. It's no surprise to me that Facebook became a tool for the Russians' bad behavior. It's always enabled and encouraged bad behavior.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)political force. They're not mentioned nearly enough because they're occult, spread privately to lists of acquaintances, who resend, etcetera, until they can reach tens of millions in a couple days without ever becoming public.
They're probably also not mentioned because email is used most now by older people. Email's old hat, not sexy. In this case, though, dismissing older people is a grave mistake because they have the highest voting rates among age demographics. This is also a prize market to invest propaganda in since older generations vote conservative in higher numbers.
We aren't hearing if Russia used email, but for sure professional American swiftboater operations have been using it intensively to spread their lies almost as long as it and they have existed, not coincidentally about the same length of time.
Nitram
(22,892 posts)Stirring up animosity between Clintonistas and Bernistas in particular. Spreading anti-Ukraine propaganda.
scipan
(2,359 posts)Not trying to accuse you of anything. I've been curious about that and would really like to know.
Nitram
(22,892 posts)Most people ignored them, but I engaged and refuted their most obvious distortions and lies. One went by the handle "Polly." I have no definitive evidence that they were stirring the pot to put Bernistas and Clintonistas at each other's throats, but in hindsight it explains the posts that seemed designed to enrage both camps against the other during the primaries in particular. Numerous times people on both sides posted, "but we're not being as nasty as some of the people on your side." Now I suspect that was true. When I get time I'll dive into the archives and see what I can find.