Facebook is again having to account for its role in 2016 election

[mountaineer]

Facebook is again having to account for its role in 2016 election
by Brian Stelter   
March 17, 2018: 4:27 PM ET

Facebook's first black eye was from "fake news."

The social network's secretive algorithm enabled hoaxes and lies to reach millions of people during the US presidential campaign in 2016.  Analysts were taken aback by the scope of the problem. Facebook (FB) vowed to make changes.

Then investigators found a pipeline of Russian propaganda. A so-called troll farm hijacked Facebook's platform to sow chaos and, eventually, to try to tip the scale in Donald Trump's direction.  Lawmakers were outraged. Facebook vowed to make changes.

Now the company is facing another embarrassing discovery. A joint investigation by The New York Times and the UK's Observer newspaper found possible violations of Facebook policies by Cambridge Analytica, one of the Trump campaign's data firms.  ...

More at CNN

[mountaineer]

Meanwhile, Facebook continues to aid and abet the DNC.

Facebook CMO Gary Briggs is leaving to advise other companies, sit on some boards and help the Democrats in 2020
Briggs has been Facebook’s chief marketing officer since 2013.
By Kurt Wagner Jan 23, 2018, 2:06pm EST

Facebook CMO Gary Briggs is retiring.

Briggs, who joined Facebook in 2013 from Google, announced his plans to leave the social giant on his Facebook page Monday afternoon. Briggs, who reports to Facebook’s top product executive Chris Cox, says that he’ll stick around at the company and help hunt for his replacement.

Retirement doesn’t sound like it will be very quiet for Briggs, though that’s how he framed it. He says he hopes to advise a few companies — he’s already advising finance startup Lending Club and the craft brewery, Lagunitas, according to his LinkedIn — and also wants to sit on some boards. He even intends to get into politics. “I plan to help the Democratic Party on some efforts leading up to the U.S. midterms this year through to 2020,” he added.

Briggs’s departure is notable, in part, because very few senior executives ever seem to leave Facebook. It also comes at a time when Facebook is fighting to improve its outside reputation following its unintentional role in the 2016 presidential election, in which Russian sources used Facebook to spread disinformation.   ...

Rest of story
 

[Sighlass]

sow chaos and, eventually, to try to tip the scale in Donald Trump's direction.

I guess the source was CNN.... because everything I have read suggests the Russians only tried to disrupt, not tip the scales in any direction. They sow discourse and sit back and laugh as the stupid suck it in.

[mountaineer]

everything I have read suggests the Russians only tried to disrupt, not tip the scales in any direction. They sow discourse and sit back and laugh as the stupid suck it in.

I agree.

[truth_seeker]

I have been on Facebook from nearly their beginning, mostly to watch. It is useful to stay in touch with distant relatives, and to witness the crazy world in general.

The election season 2016 on Facebook was wild. I seriously doubt that votes were changed, however.

[Sanguine]

I guess the source was CNN.... because everything I have read suggests the Russians only tried to disrupt, not tip the scales in any direction. They sow discourse and sit back and laugh as the stupid suck it in.

Yes, that's what I understand too.

[LauraTXNM]

Like I just posted elsewhere, we all really need to pay attention to this story.  This is a serious issue that goes far beyond just Cambridge Analytica and FB.

As far as Cambridge A goes, they actually tried to buy similar research data from a friend of my husband.  When our friend turned them down because he felt it was unethical, they apparently hired someone to produce their own ;(.

[Sanguine]

Like I just posted elsewhere, we all really need to pay attention to this story.  This is a serious issue that goes far beyond just Cambridge Analytica and FB.

As far as Cambridge A goes, they actually tried to buy similar research data from a friend of my husband.  When our friend turned them down because he felt it was unethical, they apparently hired someone to produce their own ;(.

I don't know how we combat this. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Like I just posted elsewhere, we all really need to pay attention to this story.  This is a serious issue that goes far beyond just Cambridge Analytica and FB.

As far as Cambridge A goes, they actually tried to buy similar research data from a friend of my husband.  When our friend turned them down because he felt it was unethical, they apparently hired someone to produce their own ;(.

I suppose we should pay attention, but it is not helpful when media outlets try to spin this from "sowing discord" into "tipping the election to Trump."  Whether it's true or not, it's giving the impression the media is still beating on the Russia/Trump collusion BS, and are being just partisan players instead of honest purveyors of news.

It's turning people off, and convincing them it's another nothing burger from CNN.

[LauraTXNM]

I suppose we should pay attention, but it is not helpful when media outlets try to spin this from "sowing discord" into "tipping the election to Trump."  Whether it's true or not, it's giving the impression the media is still beating on the Russia/Trump collusion BS, and are being just partisan players instead of honest purveyors of news.

It's turning people off, and convincing them it's another nothing burger from CNN.

@Cyber Liberty  I think that the Russians ginning up rallies on FB and testing the defenses of our voting security is "sowing discord".  I think that if you look at the images/memes, they're overwhelmingly anti-Clinton (Hillary in a cage).  The main actions we know of, like the dumping of Clinton's emails, were done on behalf of Donald Trump and seemingly (grotesquely) at his behest, since they dropped just after he asked for them, and Roger Stone had told him it was happening.  If you listen to the interviews with the actual troll farm workers, they'll tell you they were instructed to go negative on Clinton, basically stir up trouble but always against her.  I don't think the Russians necessarily thought Trump could win, but they wanted to weaken Clinton in case she won.  It is a huge warning sign to all of us.  It doesn't diminish Trump's victory, but those who try to deny it can look weak and deluded and lacking credibility.

I think the Roger Stone-Wikileaks thing might be collusion.  I agree with the House Intel Committee to the extend that they saw extremely poor judgment and lack of foresight in Trump campaign actions like the adoption meeting.  I think some of the campaign like Don Jr. were totally OPEN to colluding but just never got the chance.  I see all of this as pathetic and indicative of a moral sense but not actionable.  I am glad Mueller is investigating, though, because I want to know there is nothing worse there.  Like the family having conflicting business ties to Russians; Trump was trying to negotiate a new building in Russia while campaigning.  Like Flynn being a compromised agent who advised Trump while talking about kidnapping Gulen, and Manafort (full stop).  I want to feel secure in trusting my President, and the investigation will reassure me that he's not compromised.

Sorry this is so long ;)!  Anyway, all that ^^^ aside, hopefully the FB part of the Cambridge A story will really be what sticks.  Filling out third-party apps on FB is incredibly stupid.  People must learn to secure their private info better ;(.

[Cyber Liberty]

@LauraTXNM

I think we agree on many aspects of this, especially about the Cambridge A part.  The problem I am having is the heavily biased press ginning up every angle they can into an anti-Trump story, even when they aren't.  It makes what used to be semi-reliable agents of the  press into nothing more than Democrat propagandists.

I used to just consider CNN the "Clinton/Commie News Network" and take their reportage with a grain of salt.  Now I find they've become completely unwatchable, even moreso than MSNBC.  Every time I tune in, they're playing up the Trump angle to every story.  They probably blame the Miami bridge collapse on Trump somehow.  I don't know for sure because I haven't watched, I used to watch them for the breaking stuff.

I am not one of the "Trump-lovers" on this forum, in fact I was dead set against him before he clinched the nomination.  But, as with previous candidates I didn't like, I knew and told people at the time that before this was over I'd be forced to defend the sonofabitch.

[Sanguine]

@Cyber Liberty  I think that the Russians ginning up rallies on FB and testing the defenses of our voting security is "sowing discord".  I think that if you look at the images/memes, they're overwhelmingly anti-Clinton (Hillary in a cage).  The main actions we know of, like the dumping of Clinton's emails, were done on behalf of Donald Trump and seemingly (grotesquely) at his behest, since they dropped just after he asked for them, and Roger Stone had told him it was happening.  If you listen to the interviews with the actual troll farm workers, they'll tell you they were instructed to go negative on Clinton, basically stir up trouble but always against her.  I don't think the Russians necessarily thought Trump could win, but they wanted to weaken Clinton in case she won.  It is a huge warning sign to all of us.  It doesn't diminish Trump's victory, but those who try to deny it can look weak and deluded and lacking credibility.

I think the Roger Stone-Wikileaks thing might be collusion.  I agree with the House Intel Committee to the extend that they saw extremely poor judgment and lack of foresight in Trump campaign actions like the adoption meeting.  I think some of the campaign like Don Jr. were totally OPEN to colluding but just never got the chance.  I see all of this as pathetic and indicative of a moral sense but not actionable.  I am glad Mueller is investigating, though, because I want to know there is nothing worse there.  Like the family having conflicting business ties to Russians; Trump was trying to negotiate a new building in Russia while campaigning.  Like Flynn being a compromised agent who advised Trump while talking about kidnapping Gulen, and Manafort (full stop).  I want to feel secure in trusting my President, and the investigation will reassure me that he's not compromised.

Sorry this is so long ;)!  Anyway, all that ^^^ aside, hopefully the FB part of the Cambridge A story will really be what sticks.  Filling out third-party apps on FB is incredibly stupid.  People must learn to secure their private info better ;(.

@LauraTXNM, all reasonable comments, but what law is it that prohibits "collusion"? 

[LauraTXNM]

@LauraTXNM

I think we agree on many aspects of this, especially about the Cambridge A part.  The problem I am having is the heavily biased press ginning up every angle they can into an anti-Trump story, even when they aren't.  It makes what used to be semi-reliable agents of the  press into nothing more than Democrat propagandists.

I used to just consider CNN the "Clinton/Commie News Network" and take their reportage with a grain of salt.  Now I find they've become completely unwatchable, even moreso than MSNBC.  Every time I tune in, they're playing up the Trump angle to every story.  They probably blame the Miami bridge collapse on Trump somehow.  I don't know for sure because I haven't watched, I used to watch them for the breaking stuff.

I am not one of the "Trump-lovers" on this forum, in fact I was dead set against him before he clinched the nomination.  But, as with previous candidates I didn't like, I knew and told people at the time that before this was over I'd be forced to defend the sonofabitch.

@Cyber Liberty  I do think CNN in particular is putting all their eggs in one basket, to the point that it's ridiculous.  One time it was extreme was when Jacob Zuma was kicked out of the SA government, and they weren't even covering it!  I wonder if a little bit isn't a response to the fact the media were a little too soft on the Second Iraq War.  So now they are bound and determined not to let anything slip by them ;(.

[LauraTXNM]

@LauraTXNM, all reasonable comments, but what law is it that prohibits "collusion"?

@Sanguine, that's such a good point!  Politicians seem to take their opposition research wherever they can find it, don't they?  I'd certainly hope everyone will be more careful to vet their sources from now on.  Just like I hope everybody has now learned not to use private email accounts or your own server ;). 

I've always seen the "collusion" issue as one that goes to whether a politician is "beholden" to another state/govt/entity to the point that s/he is a foreign agent.  So the crime would be treason, wouldn't it?  This wouldn't be a Manchurian Candidate scenario, where the politician is brainwashed and unaware of his actions. 

Aha, I found an article, and I'm pretending it's not about Trump ;):

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

I'm guessing @Applewood might know something about this, since collusion is only a crime in anti-trust law.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine, that's such a good point!  Politicians seem to take their opposition research wherever they can find it, don't they?  I'd certainly hope everyone will be more careful to vet their sources from now on.  Just like I hope everybody has now learned not to use private email accounts or your own server ;). 

I've always seen the "collusion" issue as one that goes to whether a politician is "beholden" to another state/govt/entity to the point that s/he is a foreign agent.  So the crime would be treason, wouldn't it?  This wouldn't be a Manchurian Candidate scenario, where the politician is brainwashed and unaware of his actions. 

Aha, I found an article, and I'm pretending it's not about Trump ;):

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

I'm guessing @Applewood might know something about this, since collusion is only a crime in anti-trust law.

And, that says a lot about the persecutionprosecution and the coverage thereof, doesn't it?

[Cyber Liberty]

@Sanguine, that's such a good point!  Politicians seem to take their opposition research wherever they can find it, don't they?  I'd certainly hope everyone will be more careful to vet their sources from now on.  Just like I hope everybody has now learned not to use private email accounts or your own server ;). 

About the private email accounts:  You have to remember why Hillary (and others in the Obama administration) used private email accounts and servers in the first place.  It's not because they and their correspondents were too lazy or sloppy to have ".gov" in their email addresses.  It was to prevent the government servers from capturing their conversations and storing them in the government archives.  The purpose of that was to keep the information away from you and me.  We have to take her word that the emails she destroyed were about wedding plans and yoga lessons.

As for Trump getting his "opposition research" from the Russians, I don't know if that occurred.  From all indications the Russians didn't tell them anything they didn't already know, but that wasn't for lack of trying.  I do remember Trump joking about asking the Russians for Hillary's missing emails, but that's like when you use sarcasm, too.  At that time, it was known Hillary was hiding emails, it was also known her server (and the DNC's) were insecure and all the Intelligence Agencies were giving a 99% probability the Russians successfully hacked them both.  In hindsight, and at the time, I just assumed the Russians had all the emails Hillary was refusing to give to people investigating her.  The public is the last group of people she wanted to see what she was doing.

[mountaineer]

Ex-Obama Campaign Director Drops Bombshell Claim on Facebook: 'They Were on Our Side'
JASON HOWERTON | MAR 19, 2018 | 12:00 PM

A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do — because they were supportive of the campaign.

In a Sunday tweet thread, Carol Davidson, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said the 2012 campaign led Facebook to “suck out the whole social graph” and target potential voters. They would then use that data to do things like append their email lists.  ...  More at IJR

[Sanguine]

Ex-Obama Campaign Director Drops Bombshell Claim on Facebook: 'They Were on Our Side'
JASON HOWERTON | MAR 19, 2018 | 12:00 PM

A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do — because they were supportive of the campaign.

In a Sunday tweet thread, Carol Davidson, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said the 2012 campaign led Facebook to “suck out the whole social graph” and target potential voters. They would then use that data to do things like append their email lists.  ...  More at IJR

That could fall into the category of stuff that Maxine Waters was talking about three or four years ago, about 0bama changing the way things were done, and he had a great bid database. 

[Cyber Liberty]

That could fall into the category of stuff that Maxine Waters was talking about three or four years ago, about 0bama changing the way things were done, and he had a great bid database.

I recall at the time we agreed she was probably correct, and there was nothing we could do about it because there were no laws against it, and the all-Democrat government we had at the time wasn't about to fix the problem.  This story will be blown off as it is, being "old news."

[Free Vulcan]

Give me a break. I despise Scmuckerberg as much as the next guy, but Facebook isn't big and powerful enough to have that much influence over the election.

[Sanguine]

Give me a break. I despise Scmuckerberg as much as the next guy, but Facebook isn't big and powerful enough to have that much influence over the election.

I heard something the other day that 40+ percent of people get their news from FB.  I sure hope they don't vote.

[truth_seeker]

Give me a break. I despise Scmuckerberg as much as the next guy, but Facebook isn't big and powerful enough to have that much influence over the election.

Then why is it even being alleged or discussed?

As of today, both sides state (correctly) that the other side did use data mining, etc.

[Free Vulcan]

I heard something the other day that 40+ percent of people get their news from FB.  I sure hope they don't vote.

It's kind of a self-reinforcing echo chamber. Since I'm right wing, I tend to get right wing news. I suppose the most vapid might be influenced, but Facebook still competes with a great deal of other media advertisement.

[Free Vulcan]

Then why is it even being alleged or discussed?

As of today, both sides state (correctly) that the other side did use data mining, etc.

Because there's a desperate Leftist attempt for a Russia! Russia! Russia! connection, no matter what. In this case taking something far smaller and trying to make it far bigger than it is.

[LauraTXNM]

About the private email accounts:  You have to remember why Hillary (and others in the Obama administration) used private email accounts and servers in the first place.  It's not because they and their correspondents were too lazy or sloppy to have ".gov" in their email addresses.  It was to prevent the government servers from capturing their conversations and storing them in the government archives.  The purpose of that was to keep the information away from you and me.  We have to take her word that the emails she destroyed were about wedding plans and yoga lessons.

Condaleeza Rice and several other previous officials did the same thing.  Some of Trump's officials also started out doing it, and they certainly should have known better by now.  We can't *know* what any of these people's motives were, but I think it's at least partly tech illiteracy.

As for Trump getting his "opposition research" from the Russians, I don't know if that occurred.  From all indications the Russians didn't tell them anything they didn't already know, but that wasn't for lack of trying.  I do remember Trump joking about asking the Russians for Hillary's missing emails, but that's like when you use sarcasm, too.  At that time, it was known Hillary was hiding emails, it was also known her server (and the DNC's) were insecure and all the Intelligence Agencies were giving a 99% probability the Russians successfully hacked them both.  In hindsight, and at the time, I just assumed the Russians had all the emails Hillary was refusing to give to people investigating her.  The public is the last group of people she wanted to see what she was doing.


The part I see as damning about Trump's joke about the Clinton emails, was the timeline and indications he *knew* the Russians were about to release them when he made the comment.  Trump adviser Roger Stone knew this was about to happen --> Trump "coincidentally" asked the Russians to release them --> they almost immediately came out.  It's like an early example of Trump being too cute for his own good, speaking/hinting/gloating about something when he'd be better served just keeping his mouth shut.