Fb reportedly bought 1000’s of adverts to a shady Russian firm attempting to affect voters across the 2016 U.S. presidential election this we all know what is much less clear is how huge of a deal that is.
However nothing about this appears good.
The corporate in query which The Washington Post report is tied to a Russian propaganda “troll farm,” ran adverts that Fb Chief Safety Officer Alex Stamos wrote “appeared to concentrate on amplifying divisive social and political messages throughout the ideological spectrum referring to subjects from LGBT issues to race to immigration to gun rights.
These adverts referenced both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
The social media has up to now declined to say which candidate the adverts appeared to favor, however, the CIA having “excessive confidence” that the Russian authorities labored to assist Donald Trump.
Importantly us, federal regulation prohibits each international nationals and international governments from making contributions or spending cash to affect a federal, state election in the USA.
This newest revelation follows claims made by Fb CEO Mark Zuckerberg after the election, by which he mentioned it was a reasonably loopy thought” that his firm’s failure to reign in so-called pretend information” was in any way liable for the election of Donald Trump.
Importantly as Fb is refusing to reveal simply what the adverts said we do not know in the event that they fall into that class.
As a result of what’s troubling here isn’t the Russian group or Web Analysis Company affect on the U.S. election.
It is that Fb made it really easy all for the comparatively low price of $100,000.
Keep in mind the instruments Fb provides to advertisers are extremely effective adverts.
We all know that the Web Analysis Company took benefit of this.
Ads ran from June of 2015 to Might of 2017 and had been focused geographically.
This does not bode well for our information future.
YES, THERE ARE PAID GOVERNMENT TROLLS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BLOGS, FORUMS AND WEBSITES
Do you want solid proof that paid government shills are targeting websites, blogs, forums and social media accounts? For years, many have suspected that government trolls have been systematically causing havoc all over the Internet, but proving it has been difficult.
But now thanks to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and revealed by Glenn Greenwald, we finally have hard evidence that western governments have been doing this. As you will see below, a UK intelligence outfit known as the Government Communications Headquarters, through a previously secret unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, has been systematically attempting “to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse”. This should be deeply disturbing to anyone that values free speech on the Internet.
It isn’t just that the British government is trying to influence what people are thinking. The reality is that this is far bigger than a mere propaganda campaign. As Greenwald recently noted on his new website, the “integrity of the Internet itself” is at stake…
By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
So what techniques are the British using to control and manipulate discourse on the Internet? According to Greenwald, the documents that Snowden has uncovered show that they are willing to sink to despicable lows in order to get the results that they desire…
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
The following is a list of Internet infiltration techniques that were listed on one particular slide that Snowden leaked…
–Set Piece Operation
–False Flag Operation
–False Rescue Operation
You can check out this slide for yourself right here.
There is also evidence that the Canadian government has been involved in this sort of thing as well. The following comes from Natural News…
You’ve probably run into them before — those seemingly random antagonizers who always end up diverting the conversation in an online chat room or article comment section away from the issue at hand, and towards a much different agenda. Hot-button issues like illegal immigration, the two-party political system, the “war on terror” and even alternative medicine are among the most common targets of such attackers, known as internet “trolls” or “shills,” who in many cases are nothing more than paid lackeys hired by the federal government and other international organizations to sway and ultimately control public opinion.
Several years ago, Canada’s CTV News aired a short segment about how its own government had been exposed for hiring secret agents to monitor social media and track online conversations, as well as the activities of certain dissenting individuals. This report, which in obvious whitewashing language referred to such activities as the government simply “weighing in and correcting” allegedly false information posted online, basically admitted that the Canadian government had assumed the role of secret online police.
You can see a video news report about this activity up in Canada right here.
Are you disturbed yet?
You should be.
So what kind of people are the governments of the western world targeting online?
Well, when it comes to the U.S. government, all you have to do is to look at their official documents to see who they consider the “problems” to be. For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled http://truthcdm.com/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists/ficial Government Documents“.
Sadly, the reality of the matter is that the days of the free and open Internet are numbered. The governments of the world are increasing their control over the Internet with each passing day, and eventually a time will likely come when we will not be able to communicate openly like this any longer.
Things have gotten so bad in the U.S. already that even Google is spooked…
A recent court decision that endorsed a broad view of the Federal Communications Commission’s authority over the Internet has Google and other Web companies nervous.
In closed-door meetings with regulators and Capitol Hill staff, Google’s lawyers have said they’re worried how the FCC may use its newfound powers, according to multiple people familiar with the meetings.
The extent of the FCC’s authority over Google and other Web services remains unclear, and the current FCC has given no indication that it is interested in pushing aggressive new regulations. But the possibility that the commission could begin telling Google how to organize its search results or handle its users’ data is enough to spook the company’s army of Washington lobbyists.
And this is just the beginning.
If you think that the control freaks that are running things now are bad, just wait until you see the next generation of control freaks.
For example, there is one prominent student writer at Harvard that apparently believes that free speech at her university should be abolished and that any professor that does not advocate for her politically-correct version of “justice” should be fired…
A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.
Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.
“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.
This is what control freaks always want.
They always want to shut down those that are presenting opposing views.
They don’t believe in free speech and a “marketplace of ideas”. Rather, they believe in shoving what they believe down the rest of our throats.
And now we have solid proof that the governments of the western world are paying people to manipulate discourse on social media, blogs, forums and websites.
So will there be great outrage over this, or will the apathetic public just roll over and ignore this like they have so many other times the past few years?
According to Jonathan Albright, research director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, even a subset of the Russian-backed ads—reportedly propagated by an outfit called the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg—could have echoed around the Internet millions or even billions of times, reaching a vast audience through “likes,” shares, and reposting. In a report issued by Albright and covered by The Washington Post, just six of the bogus, Russian-sponsored Facebook pages—under such diverse handles as Blacktivists, United Muslims of America, Being Patriotic, Heart of Texas, Secured Borders, and LGBT United—were shared 340 million times.
That’s from just six sites, and there were 464 others that Facebook has admitted to finding. Plus, there could be hundreds or thousands of other undiscovered sites, perhaps fostered through cutouts or that weren’t paid for in Russian currency.
Indeed, according to one study, as many as one-fifth of all election-related tweets may have stemmed from automated bots. Not all were Russian-related, of course, but the study did find that pro-Trump bot output exceeded pro-Clinton bots by a factor of three to one.
Many of the Facebook ads were posted by wholly fabricated Russian users, often posing as nonexistent Americans, seeking to highlight racial and religious conflicts, anti-immigrant tensions, and radical-right points of view, either designed to excite Trump-leaning Internet users or depress and alienate Clinton-leaning ones. Others simply picked up and recast or exaggerated existing American opinion through posts and memes.
Though only a tiny portion of the ads have been made public so far, Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wants to make them all public eventually.
“The American people deserve to see the ways that the Russian intelligence services manipulated and took advantage of online platforms to stoke and amplify social and political tensions, which remains a tactic we see the Russian government rely on today,” said Schiff.
It isn’t clear yet how the ads were targeted, and to what audiences. But it’s likely that some of them—such as the one urging voters to cast their vote for the Green Party’s Jill Stein, using the hash tag #GrowASpineVoteJillStein—were intended to appeal to, and to appear on the Facebook and Twitter feeds of, left-leaning Democrats. Others, such as those highlighting Muslim or Black Lives Matter support for Clinton, or a notorious one portraying a black woman dry-firing a rifle, would have been designed to scare white Republican and pro-Trump independents.
The same would apply to Russian-sponsored ads, impersonating or referring to actual American Muslims and Muslim groups, purporting to explain how Hillary Clinton admitted that the US government “created, funded and armed” Al Qaeda, or ads announcing an event tied to the Orlando nightclub massacre called: “Support Hillary. Save American Muslims!”