• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders and Trump

Taker666

Member
Apr 26, 2005
4,060
3
1,420
It says right here in the article who paid for them.

You seem strangely hung up on this, while everything points in the direction of the Russians.

..but isn't the "shadowy Russian buyer" simply the bot farm who paid for the ads? Unless you know who funded said bot farm (which may well be Russia..or it may well push ads from groups/people from all around the world (be it to push stories about political parties..or tell us on a daily basis how "Kim Kardashian Just Shaded Taylor Swift Again With 16 Words").

I wouldn't say I'm hung up on it. I just get increasingly aggravated with supposition, possibilities and opinion replacing cold hard unbiased facts (pointing "in the direction of" isn't good enough).

A true news source shouldn't come down on either side or slant in one direction over another without clear, proven, evidence to back it up.

I won't post any more as I'm clearly a Russian spy working directly for Putin.
 
Oct 17, 2006
2,059
0
0
www.calculusvictoria.ca
Bernie Sanders was the best choice.
But there are good reasons people outside US cannot vote on US elections... =)

yeah, sorry America, we liked Bernie better ;p

[but the smart thing to do was vote Hillary, after a point at least, just weird y'all couldn't do it]

i was VERY skeptical of all this red-baiting stuff at first, but there's more and more concrete stuff coming out that's changing my mind and piquing my interest to be sure.
 

ClosingADoor

Member
Apr 6, 2009
16,923
0
0
Amsterdam
..but isn't the "shadowy Russian buyer" simply the bot farm who paid for the ads? Unless you know who funded said bot farm (which may well be Russia..or it may well push ads from groups/people funding them from all around the word (be it to push stories about political parties..or tell us on a daily basis how "Kim Kardashian Just Shaded Taylor Swift Again With 16 Words").

I wouldn't say I'm hung up on it. I just get increasingly aggravated with the supposition, possibilities and opinion replacing cold hard unbiased facts (pointing "in the direction of" isn't good enough). The ads may well have been funded by the Russian government paying/owning a Russian bot farm to do their bidding...but it may also simply be one of the many bot companies out there that is being funded to push stories via twitter and facebook by individuals/organizations that could be located anywhere in the world.

A true news source shouldn't come down on either side or slant in one direction over another without clear, proven, evidence to back it up.

I won't post any more as I'm clearly a Russian spy working directly for Putin.
This specific company has been linked to the Kremlin, so there is a bit more evidence then just the content of the ads. It's everything together that points in the direction of this being done for the Russians.

Politico is a perfectly fine news source and nothing in this article is slanted in one direction or the other. It is simply saying what the investigation into these Facebook ads has come across.

Considering all the deflection and how this stuff goes normally with this subject, you can't fault people for being a little skeptical about your posts in this thread.
 
Jan 16, 2007
7,836
0
1,170
..but isn't the "shadowy Russian buyer" simply the bot farm who paid for the ads? Unless you know who funded said bot farm (which may well be Russia..or it may well push ads from groups/people from all around the world (be it to push stories about political parties..or tell us on a daily basis how "Kim Kardashian Just Shaded Taylor Swift Again With 16 Words").

I wouldn't say I'm hung up on it. I just get increasingly aggravated with supposition, possibilities and opinion replacing cold hard unbiased facts (pointing "in the direction of" isn't good enough).

A true news source shouldn't come down on either side or slant in one direction over another without clear, proven, evidence to back it up.

I won't post any more as I'm clearly a Russian spy working directly for Putin.

If Mueller is looking into it, something must be there. Or not. We are about to find out? I assume Mueller isn't in the nothingburger business.
 

FStubbs

Member
Aug 29, 2010
5,236
1,445
1,045
Seemed like they were totally on an anti-Hillary campaign.

Where does this put Rubio, though? Didn't they try and hack him in order for him to lose to Trump? You'd assume any candidate that wasn't Hillary was a target they'd back, not eliminate.

Maybe they feared Roboto a little too.
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
Mar 25, 2008
10,533
1
0
Seemed like they were totally on an anti-Hillary campaign.

Where does this put Rubio, though? Didn't they try and hack him in order for him to lose to Trump? You'd assume any candidate that wasn't Hillary was a target they'd back, not eliminate.

They wanted someone anti establishment. Rubio might be another dumbass Republican but at least he'd continue stability and maintain a steady American neocon foreign policy.
 

curls

Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience 💤
Aug 17, 2007
1,781
0
0
Iceland
Fighting propaganda with propaganda. 🙄
 

skullmuffins

Banned
Mar 22, 2010
1,909
0
0
steamcommunity.com
Would it? Is there a specific law?

In the UK there was a leadership challenge in the UK Labour party last year and it was trending on twitter along with the opponents hashtag..now it turned out most of those retweets/hashtags were not located in the UK but were coming from India and other countries in that area...so clearly someone in the UK, likely linked to the party, paid bot farms to get it trending.

Still..it wouldn't have to be a political organization who funded this. As I mentioned earlier, a quick google and you can see how you can pay $40 to get 10,000 retweets on twitter.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up renting botnets for $40 when this story is about roughly $150,000 in ad purchases on Facebook.
 

Yui's Empire

Member
Aug 30, 2017
563
752
590
 

Quixzlizx

Member
Jul 6, 2006
9,922
0
0
It was Russia funded. The money paid to Facebook came from a Russian company. I don't know why you try to twist this into something else. It is not propaganda, please look up what propaganda actually is.

You don't? I think I do.

Edit: My bad on the double post.
 

Plover

Neo Member
Nov 25, 2014
46
0
0
Australia
Wasn't Stein always using the same Kremlin and Trump talking points against Hillary? At least one of the Senate investigations is looking into her and she's mentioned in the dossier, she's absolutely suspect.
 

Neoweee

Member
Oct 8, 2014
4,739
0
415
Either Jill Stein is a colossal idiot or she was actively complicit in Russia's meddling. I would hope she is in the scope of Mueller's inestigation.

I hope Sanders is too. He was complicit in his supporters going batshit crazy with anti-hillary and DNC conspiracy theories, egged on by Russian trolls.
 

SolarPowered

Member
Feb 17, 2009
25,573
0
0
I hope Sanders is too. He was complicit in his supporters going batshit crazy with anti-hillary and DNC conspiracy theories, egged on by Russian trolls.
Do you WANT to kill the democratic party? Because that is how you kill the party. We already know the Russians tried to infiltrate the Bernie base, but he came out hard for Hillary when it mattered and so did the democrat portion of his base that went for Hillary more than Hillary voters went for Obama back in 08. Justice should be served no matter who did committed the crime, but I'm not hoping for the party to wage a civil war that makes 2016 look like a goddamn tea party. Also, whatever has been revealed to the public so far is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is not a coincidence that Republican senators and congressmen are either distancing themselves from Trump or retiring early from politics. Democrat senators wouldn't be cozying up to Bernie at all if he played a role in Russian collusion even as a patsy.
 

IggyChooChoo

Member
Apr 26, 2016
1,520
0
0
I hope Sanders is too. He was complicit in his supporters going batshit crazy with anti-hillary and DNC conspiracy theories, egged on by Russian trolls.
I felt Sanders pushed the "Hillary is corrupt" bullshit way too hard and for too long, but if he were complicit it would be devastating for everyone on the left. But I highly doubt he would have been involved with any Russian stuff.
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
Mar 25, 2008
10,533
1
0
I hope Sanders is too. He was complicit in his supporters going batshit crazy with anti-hillary and DNC conspiracy theories, egged on by Russian trolls.

Naw. He painted her as very pro Wallstreet but he certainly didn't echo many conspiracy theories and actively tried to downplay some (see: "tired of hearing about your damn emails")
 

Aaronology

Member
May 12, 2006
4,999
0
0
Chicago
Especially as a Sanders supporter, I'm not in the least bit surprised.

It was Hillary that they truly didn't want elected by any means.

This. I always felt the majority of 'Bernie Bros' were impersonators. The air of 'trying too hard', even after he lost the primaries, was wafting all over. No way you could support Bernie at first, see he was defeated, look at Trump and say: This is my guy. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
And yet that's precisely what many of them did at the voting booth. What was the number again, 1 out of 10?
 

Clockwork

Member
Jun 7, 2007
3,348
3
900
The article doesn't, but a lot of the posts in here, specifically the ones about Stein, have a strong implication behind them.

Yeah. Ridiculous implications.

These people were used in ads because it would be detrimental to Hillary, not because these candidates (Stein/Sanders) had any involvement.

Jesus Christ.
 

Neoweee

Member
Oct 8, 2014
4,739
0
415
And yet that's precisely what many of them did at the voting booth. What was the number again, 1 out of 10?

But a whole lot more than that stayed home or went third party. Focusing on only the Trump swing voters misses a lot of the damage.
 

the-pi-guy

Member
Nov 4, 2014
1,300
0
350
Hillary said that Russia is the US's greatest threat. Bernie said North Korea. With Hillary's experience, it's easy to see why Russia would support everyone or anyone else.

The bizarre thing to me is why people are thinking that Jill Stein should be investigated.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Feb 20, 2011
27,932
307
1,030
Nebraska
www.youtube.com
The word "complicit" seems to be thrown around without effort. I can see the argument for Jill Stein, with her dealings with the Kremlin. But Sanders? I'm not sure "complicit" is a proper word. Of course it should be looked into. But this seems more likely that it was a "ANYBODY BUT HILLARY!" than is was a circle jerk of collusion and complicit behavior.

Even more strange, I never saw any ads on Facebook that were anything other than Hillary Clinton fake news. Nothing pro-Jill or pro-Bernie. So I can't wait to see what comes out of this.

Also- Facebook needs to answer for this shit, and Zuckerburg better keep his ass away from 2020 if he knows what's good for him. Mother fucker will get skewered.
Hillary said that Russia is the US's greatest threat. Bernie said North Korea. With Hillary's experience, it's easy to see why Russia would support everyone or anyone else.

The bizarre thing to me is why people are thinking that Jill Stein should be investigated.
Jill Stein gets heat because she dared to run for President, and people had the nerve to excercise their Democratic right to vote for her. Not too much more than that. Sure, she was a sucky candidate, and so was Johnson. But still.
 

nephilimdj

Member
Jan 31, 2011
5,854
63
805
Straya
Yea basically see anything from Russia, Israel or China on net, its goverment backed.
No real proper think tanks or anything like that.

All scummy agencies
 

Sobriquet

Member
Jan 11, 2009
10,845
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
No..it was funded by whoever paid the Russian company to push the stories via facebook.

Now you could say "a Russian bot company paid for facebook ads while being funded by an unknown entity from an unknown country". ..

..but to say "Russian-funded facebook ads" is simply trying to push an agenda that puts "Russia" itself as the individual entity who funded said ads.

But that Russian company is linked to the Kremlin, as stated in the article.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
The Obama administration had done everything it can do already with economic sanctions. They can't do anything short of war, provoking war/conflict, or a useless proxy war type situation.

People more left than Obama are the ones I am talking about including Bernie, Jill Stein, and European politicians. They usually are very pacifist and are too reactionary, but late when they react and many on the left think they can seriously talk to Russia about the things it does despite its current goals. Bernie Sanders I feel would be too soft when it comes to foreign policy, I am not sure how willing he would be to throw weight around, unilaterally if needed. It takes too long to create a coalition.
 

kamineko

Does his best thinking in the flying car
Oct 7, 2014
5,245
2
435
I don't know what good that could have possibly done the Russians. All of that post-primary Hillary bashing from the left felt really productive and results-oriented.

/s
 

KernelPanic

Member
Apr 2, 2008
10,538
0
0
Canada
The bizarre thing to me is why people are thinking that Jill Stein should be investigated.

Because she is under investigation, at least by Congress as they asked for all communication between her campaign and Trump(among others). She's at the very least a witness as she was at the dinner.

She's also against sanctions on Russia and defends North Korea which is odd.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
The word "complicit" seems to be thrown around without effort. I can see the argument for Jill Stein, with her dealings with the Kremlin. But Sanders? I'm not sure "complicit" is a proper word. Of course it should be looked into. But this seems more likely that it was a "ANYBODY BUT HILLARY!" than is was a circle jerk of collusion and complicit behavior.

Even more strange, I never saw any ads on Facebook that were anything other than Hillary Clinton fake news. Nothing pro-Jill or pro-Bernie. So I can't wait to see what comes out of this.

Also- Facebook needs to answer for this shit, and Zuckerburg better keep his ass away from 2020 if he knows what's good for him. Mother fucker will get skewered.

Jill Stein gets heat because she dared to run for President, and people had the nerve to excercise their Democratic right to vote for her. Not too much more than that. Sure, she was a sucky candidate, and so was Johnson. But still.

Russia's Green activists are accusing U.S. Green Party leader Jill Stein of neglecting their struggle, after a series of statements she made, calling for closer cooperation with the Kremlin at a dinner with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Stein has made statements, echoing the Kremlin’s criticism of the U.S., as her programme calls American policy in the Middle East “a futile quest for military and economic domination,” while she has urged for collaboration with Moscow at a dinner with Putin last December. Stein is currently campaigning as a candidate for White House ahead of the November elections.

Leading Russian environmental activists Yevgenia Chirikova and Nadezhda Kutepova posted an open letter on Tuesday, expressing alarm at Stein’s apparent one-sided criticisms, asking her to clarify her position on Facebook.

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
Jill Stein gets heat because she dared to run for President, and people had the nerve to excercise their Democratic right to vote for her. Not too much more than that. Sure, she was a sucky candidate, and so was Johnson. But still.

She gets heat because she was in Russia sitting at a table with Putin and Michael Flynn a few years ago with no explanation why and parroted anti-Hillary Russian talking points verbatim during the election. Let's not pretend these accusations are baseless.
 

Quixzlizx

Member
Jul 6, 2006
9,922
0
0
Yeah. Ridiculous implications.

These people were used in ads because it would be detrimental to Hillary, not because these candidates (Stein/Sanders) had any involvement.

Jesus Christ.

I don't think Bernie had any active involvement with any Russians, but there is certainly a chance Stein did.
 

y2dvd

Member
May 14, 2008
11,223
0
1,030
Bernie has been complaining about the corporate establishment for decades. This rhetoric didn't pop up due to Russian trolls. Dude has been consistent with all his point of views. And guess what? He was trying to win a damn race. He took it far lighter on Hilary than Hilary ever did on Obama.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Jill Stein gets heat because she dared to run for President, and people had the nerve to excercise their Democratic right to vote for her. Not too much more than that. Sure, she was a sucky candidate, and so was Johnson. But still.
No. Jesus fucking christ no. You don't go to dinners celebrating a Russian propaganda network if you're on the level!

Stop trying to downplay her massive shittiness in your attempt to absolve the guilt of people you know who voted for her!
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Dec 13, 2013
1,596
64
395
No. Jesus fucking christ no. You don't go to dinners celebrating a Russian propaganda network if you're on the level!

Stop trying to downplay her massive shittiness in your attempt to absolve the guilt of people you know who voted for her!

Actually, he is right, this has been a major complaint Democrats had with 3rd parties since Al Gore lost. Most of the posts during the elections that Jill Stein was mentioned in were shitting on her mainly due to her running and shitting on her supporters for voting her.

You can speak for yourself, but that is what I seen of most post regarding her during the election, that and her bits of anti-science beliefs (wifi signals, anti-vaxxors like you mentioned, etc.)
 

Quixzlizx

Member
Jul 6, 2006
9,922
0
0
No. Jesus fucking christ no. You don't go to dinners celebrating a Russian propaganda network if you're on the level!

Stop trying to downplay her massive shittiness in your attempt to absolve the guilt of people you know who voted for her!

Even if she weren't shady as hell, her policy positions are also an embarrassment.

This has nothing to do with saltiness. If it had been an Obama/Romney/Stein steamrolling, I'd still smh at anyone who voted for her.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Actually, he is right, this has been a major complaint Democrats had with 3rd parties since Al Gore lost. Most of the posts during the elections that Jill Stein was mentioned in were shitting on her mainly due to her running and shitting on her supporters for voting her.

You can speak for yourself, but that is what I seen of most post regarding her during the election, that and her bits of anti-science beliefs (wifi signals, anti-vaxxors like you mentioned, etc.)
Dems being rightfully annoyed at 3rd party voters has nothing to do with Jill Stein being absolutely awful.

Stop making the issue the Dems and make it the person who's spouting Russian talking points.
 

legacyzero

Banned
Feb 20, 2011
27,932
307
1,030
Nebraska
www.youtube.com
No. Jesus fucking christ no. You don't go to dinners celebrating a Russian propaganda network if you're on the level!

Stop trying to downplay her massive shittiness in your attempt to absolve the guilt of people you know who voted for her!
You cut out the part of my post where I called her a shitty candidate.

And no, you don't get to guilt trip voters for voting for her. I don't personally know anyone who voted for her. I know a few Trump voters, mainly my family in the South, and a few friends who either voted Hillary or didn't vote at all.

You wanna guilt trip folks, aim it at those who sat it out.

But yes, her odd dealings with Russia are eyebrow raising, but it's an odd conflation to guilt voters over Russian dealings and voting for a preferred candidate. Or perhaps we can get risky and blame them for being "low information voters."
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
You cut out the part of my post where I called her a shitty candidate.

And no, you don't get to guilt trip voters for voting for her. I don't personally know anyone who voted for her. I know a few Trump voters, mainly my family in the South, and a few friends who either voted Hillary or didn't vote at all.

You wanna guilt trip folks, aim it at those who sat it out.

But yes, her odd dealings with Russia are eyebrow raising, but it's an odd conflation to guilt voters over Russian dealings and voting for a preferred candidate. Or perhaps we can get risky and blame them for being "low information voters."
If you aided a white supremacist by not doing everything you could to make sure he didn't take office, you need to take responsibility for it.