Undoubtedly, Russia has worked to advance its interests (through use of misinformation and spin) during the 2016 election. Unfortunately, without an appropriate timeline that displays conditions that breeds opportunity for this behavior, this narrative of election hacking does not do us justice.
The big fish (which should have been included in the article) was the intense internet campaign made during the 2013 Ukraine crisis. Preceding the crisis, the Snowden revelations produced an immediate, immense distrust in our government and institutions, giving way to a wide window of exploitation. There are heaps of ostensive evidence of how the Russian regime took advantage of these events on multiple fronts: bolstering fringe groups in the EU, hijacking public conversations online, intimidating and harassing opposition voices (which I've experienced), and adding pressure to national dialogue through injection of Whataboutism and disingenuous innuendo.
The response from various online communities during this period has been nothing short of courageous. I've personally witnessed a multitude of diligent detection and pushback across the political and intellectual spectrum during the crisis, not only due to organic voices, but also a strong intelligence apparatus that helps to detect, analyze, and disrupt these attacks. These pieces continually avoid citing sources outside of the political spectrum that helps to make clear sense of the issue. I acknowledge that certain forces of good do not want to be in the spotlight, however as time goes on this looks like a missed opportunity to make a bold statement against not only this behavior, but also all malignant and criminal behavior that takes place online.
The confidence lost in our institutions is owed to nothing more than the political climate itself. We chase the ghosts of "collusion" and "influence" and other ambiguous terms. The time for scrutiny and hot takes are over, we should be well underway into a severe, resolute response. Instead we are packed into a clown car, driving around in circles. God help us.
Zuckerberg should resign.
God knows how many elections across the world have been effected. And if Hillary had won I wonder if Facebook would have even looked at this seriously.
If by nobody you mean nobody outside the specific, targeted people Russia paid Facebook to show them to, sure. There are a lot of examples of them on the internet, but funnily enough only Facebook has the whole lot.
The reason none of us have seen them, could be that they were only targeted at the gullible dumbasses who could possibly vote for Trump? Maybe that was a special target group? Maybe it's the same group that gets ad-targeted for e.g. hemorrhoid cream and mobile home skirting?
Frankly, given the revealed political preferences of FB executives, I'm pretty skeptical of any fruit from this tree.
I remember when Obama when to the UK to voice his support for Macron in the UK elections. Does that not count as a USA-sponsored ad? Because it sure has the same effect and intention as one.
It's at least transparent. If a foreign politician publicly supports a candidate in my country, I have a better idea about what the motivations are, and can evaluate it appropriately (which might be negative, if I think my future government shouldn't be so friendly with them)
(Given the levels of ad targeting possible, this also is a possible argument against domestic targeted election ads)
Macron was centrist the candidate in France, not the UK.
But otherwise, there is a double standard. However, your Obama anecdote doesn't demonstrate the double standard at all. Obama was being totally transparent in his support of a candidate in a foreign election. There was no attempt to disguise his intent to influence the election. It was a straightforward endorsement.
A better example of the double standard would be ignoring the US-backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran, the best known of the many instances of the US covertly influencing the political process in other countries.
That a country that the US has been a traditional adversary of tried to influence US affairs isn't really that surprising. That the attempt has been brushed off or even welcomed in some sections of US society is perhaps the novel part.
There is a world of difference between overt preference of the kind you describe (though the specific example is clearly false, since Macron was never a UK candidate) and covert influence masked as grassroots domestic groups.
Obama was the poster child for overnight political success using more or less the same mechanics that social media is built on today. They just didn't think the other side can play the same game. Which goes - Tell people what they want to hear and whoever gets the most attention wins.
Every politician whether they were tech literate or not got on Facebook and Twitter after Obama won. Facebook has enabled the propping up of unqualified to govern but qualified to be "like"d candidates all around the world.
They have done serious damage to society in the last 10 years and we are just getting started as people realize the damage.
> Obama was the poster child for overnight political success using more or less the same mechanics that social media is built on today.
Barack Obama had been in electoral politics, as first a state and then US senator, for just over a decade before being elected President, and had been widely hailed as an up and coming star in the party and likely future Presidential candidate after his national convention speech when running for the US Senate.
He was not at all an “overnight political success”.
I believe the commenter refers to “overnight” as representative of his transformation into a wide national figure, amplified by the explosion of technology during his tenure.
so - he was a state senator for less than 4 years (Less than one full term) before being elected president. I would say that's "overnight" as far as politics go - considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle.
He was a state senator for a full term, and a US Senator for a partial term (and very active as a political, if not elected, figure before that, which is what being a “community organizer” is.)
> considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle.
Sure, by that standard anyone who succeeds does so meteorically, since only a handful do per generation, while many spend whole careers in politics. But that just means the standard is nonsense.
19 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 36.4 ms ] threadThe big fish (which should have been included in the article) was the intense internet campaign made during the 2013 Ukraine crisis. Preceding the crisis, the Snowden revelations produced an immediate, immense distrust in our government and institutions, giving way to a wide window of exploitation. There are heaps of ostensive evidence of how the Russian regime took advantage of these events on multiple fronts: bolstering fringe groups in the EU, hijacking public conversations online, intimidating and harassing opposition voices (which I've experienced), and adding pressure to national dialogue through injection of Whataboutism and disingenuous innuendo.
The response from various online communities during this period has been nothing short of courageous. I've personally witnessed a multitude of diligent detection and pushback across the political and intellectual spectrum during the crisis, not only due to organic voices, but also a strong intelligence apparatus that helps to detect, analyze, and disrupt these attacks. These pieces continually avoid citing sources outside of the political spectrum that helps to make clear sense of the issue. I acknowledge that certain forces of good do not want to be in the spotlight, however as time goes on this looks like a missed opportunity to make a bold statement against not only this behavior, but also all malignant and criminal behavior that takes place online.
The confidence lost in our institutions is owed to nothing more than the political climate itself. We chase the ghosts of "collusion" and "influence" and other ambiguous terms. The time for scrutiny and hot takes are over, we should be well underway into a severe, resolute response. Instead we are packed into a clown car, driving around in circles. God help us.
Frankly, given the revealed political preferences of FB executives, I'm pretty skeptical of any fruit from this tree.
/full disclosure: I voted for Johnson.
Why the double standard?
(Given the levels of ad targeting possible, this also is a possible argument against domestic targeted election ads)
But otherwise, there is a double standard. However, your Obama anecdote doesn't demonstrate the double standard at all. Obama was being totally transparent in his support of a candidate in a foreign election. There was no attempt to disguise his intent to influence the election. It was a straightforward endorsement.
A better example of the double standard would be ignoring the US-backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran, the best known of the many instances of the US covertly influencing the political process in other countries.
That a country that the US has been a traditional adversary of tried to influence US affairs isn't really that surprising. That the attempt has been brushed off or even welcomed in some sections of US society is perhaps the novel part.
Every politician whether they were tech literate or not got on Facebook and Twitter after Obama won. Facebook has enabled the propping up of unqualified to govern but qualified to be "like"d candidates all around the world.
They have done serious damage to society in the last 10 years and we are just getting started as people realize the damage.
Barack Obama had been in electoral politics, as first a state and then US senator, for just over a decade before being elected President, and had been widely hailed as an up and coming star in the party and likely future Presidential candidate after his national convention speech when running for the US Senate.
He was not at all an “overnight political success”.
> considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle.
Sure, by that standard anyone who succeeds does so meteorically, since only a handful do per generation, while many spend whole careers in politics. But that just means the standard is nonsense.