
Fakebook: A tool exploring the 2016 U.S. election Facebook ads bought by Russia - jashkenas
https://fathom.info/fakebook/
======
soared
This doesn't really communicate anything. All the examples are something of
this ad about americans liking cars was targeted to americans who like cars. I
don't at all deny Russia meddling, but the website does a poor job at showing
what they were trying to influence.

Example: This ad targeted people interested in same-sex marriage and 12 more.

We speak for all fellow members of LGBT community across the nation.

How is this influencing anything, all it does is advertise a group to people
who would be interested in that group? They aren't stoking the flame or
promoting racism/etc.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
So the long standing rumor is that Russia influenced the US election through
Facebook. Okay, fine.

You know what I want to hear about? The wealthy Americans who used Facebook to
influence the US election. If Facebook can be used in this way, I think
looking at what Russia did is interesting, but it’s not the only story! The
story is, people are subtly and quietly influincing our elections! Shouldn’t
we look closely at everyone who did that? Not solely the Russian bogeyman?

~~~
code_duck
No, that’s nice but it’s a different issue. We already have plenty of inquiry
into the influence of Americans with money on politics, with Citizens United
and whatnot.

A hostile foreign government’s operations to propagandize Americans about
politics is important to analyze.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Call it a different issue, that’s fine. But it’s an issue I want to hear
about! I haven’t heard nearly the hand wringing over home grown control as I
have over Russia.

~~~
code_duck
I’ve seen plenty of concern over citizens United and the unfair influence of
money in politics, so you might want to broaden your sources. Your posts
remind me of basically what Trump is saying, that evil things that other
countries do are fine because we are hypocrites, or other countries attacking
us is okay because it’s our fault we’re vulnerable.

~~~
jshevek
I've never heard Trump say this. I would be happy to read any sources or
analysis which supports your claim.

Original: I’ve seen plenty of concern over citizens United and the unfair
influence of money in politics, so you might want to broaden your sources.
Your posts remind me of basically what Trump is saying, that evil things that
other countries do are fine because we are hypocrites, or other countries
attacking us is okay because it’s our fault we’re vulnerable.

~~~
code_duck
“He’s defended Putin’s authoritarian rule (“he’s a strong leader”) and, when
asked about the murder of Putin opponents, said the United States has murdered
people, too — much as Putin asserted in his interview with Chris Wallace”

Supports my first point. From The Chicago Sun Times, with links:
[https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/president-donald-
tru...](https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/president-donald-trump-russia-
vladimir-putin-robert-mueller/)

And to support my second point, here you go:
[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/trump-russia-
hack-...](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/trump-russia-hack-
democrats-dnc-722228)

“The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked.
They had bad defenses, and they were able to be hacked,” Trump said

Almost verbatim what I said, isn’t it?

------
nautilus12
I'm confused, none of these ads seem to be targeted at influencing the
election. Is that the point?

~~~
phs318u
I’ll refer you to ashelmire’s comment above.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17546138](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17546138)

TL;DR - The point of the Russian campaign is classic psyops[1]. Sow division,
discord and disbelief in authorities and institutions.

One might well argue that the US was “primed” for such a campaign by the
recent history of cynical manipulation of the public for political ends.

At this point, I find myself asking, “under what possible circumstances could
the majority (irrespective of ‘sides’) ever regain trust in their elected
officials?”

I can’t come up with an answer. There is now sufficient disbelief that any
attempts to regain trust would invariably come across as further attempts to
manipulate.

If, like me, you believe that “democracy is the worst form of government,
except for all the others”, then this is pretty depressing.

[1] [https://www.corbettreport.com/psyops-101-an-introduction-
to-...](https://www.corbettreport.com/psyops-101-an-introduction-to-
psychological-operations/)

------
aksss
I think it's telling that tech people are very skeptical of the "$100k in
facebook ads turned the election" narrative. Read the actual report from the
DNI. Election counts weren't altered, the ads are nothing-burger. The hacks on
mail systems were primarily done with spear-phishing, the same things
businesses are caught with every day. My conclusion - phishing is the real
story here of any consequence, if we want to "do something" it should be
centered around better defense against this. That said, it's very interesting
that Podesta's emails DID reveal collusion between the campaign and revolving-
door political/media employees (CNN leaking debate questions to Hillary, etc).
That's also a very significant story, and the more the narrative about Russia
sucks all the oxygen out of the room, the less we're talking or even thinking
about that kind of corrupt shit.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I think it's telling that tech people are very skeptical of the "$100k in
> facebook ads turned the election" narrative.

But...that narrative doesn't exist, it's a strawman.

No one that attributes any significant impact on the election to the Russian
information warfare operation limits their description of the operation to
$100K in Facebook ads. The Facebook _part_ of the operation involved ads
designed (among other purposes) to draw audience to false-flag Pages, that
then distributed non-ad propaganda which would be relayed by the followers of
the group, who were dupes of the operation, including organizing meat-space
events designed to foment conflict and draw conventional media attention. The
$100K on ads wasn't the operation, it was an expenditure to recruit unwitting
agents for the operation.

And that broader Facebook angle itself wasn't the whole operation, either,
there was also the targeted hacking and information release aspect, as well as
other channels through which influence was (or was attempted to be) exercised.
Like the NRA.

~~~
mistermann
> No one that attributes any significant impact on the election to the Russian
> information warfare operation limits their description of the operation to
> $100K in Facebook ads.

You are _technically_ correct. The $100k part of it is stripped out before the
"Russian Facebook hacking to steal the election" is reported over and over in
the media, absent of any details. And that is how the majority of the public
is _absolutely_ certain of something, even though almost none of them know any
of the details.

------
calibas
I've looked through the Russian posts a few times, and to me it seems quite
tame compared to the bitter, nasty, divisive rhetoric I hear sometimes from my
fellow Americans. If this is the kind of thing that hurts our country, our own
politicians are doing a far better job than the Russians.

~~~
badlucklottery
Most of them are pretty tame but that's the point. It's something with a
_slight_ slant to get people to engage then it's all about slowly isolating
them and luring them a bit farther down the rabbit hole with crazier and
crazier shared posts.

It'd be hard to recruit for a cult that starts with poison kool aid on day
one.

~~~
calibas
Where can I see the "crazier and crazier shared posts"?

~~~
nautilus12
Thats what I came to see. Until I see this I call bullshit on the entire thing
and seriously question the objectivity of those that push this theory. And
thats not me being partisan thats just me being annoyed at the lack of real
evidence being presented here.

------
Bartweiss
Since getting results out of this seems to be a struggle, here's an article
with some static pictures of the ads - and more interestingly with discussion
of their ridiculously low user engagement rates.

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/10/congress_russian_fa...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/10/congress_russian_facebook_troll_ads/)

------
phrixus
I don't want to hijack or anything, but just want to also link to a project I
did that also looked at these ads and lets you browse/categorize them
interactively:
[https://qunc.co/russia_facebook_project/](https://qunc.co/russia_facebook_project/)

~~~
fdavison
Way better UI.

------
nmca
Does this work for anyone? Finding it pretty incomprehensible. Tried searching
for 'hillary', top result is "Community of people who support our brave Police
Officers. Back The Badge" ?

------
salimmadjd
In one of my old jobs, we used to test and run a lot of different news
headlines or email titles with different messaging. We tracked and measured as
much as we could.

The depth and breath of these ads almost feels like this might have as much
been a research project as much as a process to impact the US elections or to
create discontent among the voters.

I wish there was more info or better clustering on other filters on these ads
like locations, age, etc. It would tell us how they were approaching this.

------
AndyMcConachie
This strikes me as more noise to add to the cacophony of nonsense that most
Americans experience online. Please someone explain to me why these blurbs are
somehow more signal than background noise.

~~~
pas
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547766](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547766)

------
omginternets
It's really hard to see how these ads work without seeing which pages they
link to.

------
IanDrake
I live in a MA which is a solid blue state, I’m also not in a bubble and know
many people who voted for Trump.

Not a single person voted for him because of ads. Not TV ads, not print ads,
not radio ads, not internet ads, not beach banners towed behind a Cessna.

I know it’s not a popular narrative, but no one was “fooled” into voting for
Trump. They knew what they were voting for. Most of those people liked his
anti-PC rhetoric. Which is why doubling down on PC is a bad strategy for Dems.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Agreed. I don't really care about Trump, but I voted third party again
Clinton. However... doubling down on uberPC, calling people Nazis, saying
"it's ok to be white" is white-supremacist talk, every day a new scandal...
It's like these people are trying to get him re-elected.

------
jklinger410
The Media absolutely refuses to show this aspect of the meddling. That it was
playing all-sides to encourage the same end result.

~~~
pas
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547766](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547766)

------
nathancahill
and Fakeblock is real.

------
marcrosoft
If they bought ads to slant an election what does this say about the people
falling for it?

Also, this is just digital propaganda. The US gov. and media outlets do it
too.

~~~
matt4077
if someone shoots you what does that say about your ability to avoid danger
and dodge bullets?

~~~
ithilglin909
If it was under circumstances in which a typical person ought to have been
able to avoid being shot, it would say a lot (not that that justifies the
action of the shooter).

------
adamrezich
So I'm confused. The media keeps repeating "Russia/Putin/The Kremlin
interfered with/meddled with/hacked the 2016 election" (and has for about two
full years now), but even though I feel like I've followed all this more
closely than most Americans, the narrative is quite muddy and I don't
understand what it is I'm supposed to believe.

First, I thought "the Russians" supposedly "hacked" Hillary Clinton's private
email server. Or was it Podesta's email account? No, it was neither of those,
Russia actually "compromised" some voting machines, maybe? Wait, wasn't there
a series of stories, all from that same time period, about how "Russian
hackers" managed to "break into but not quite gain control of" an Ameriacn
hydroelectric dam, or something? Or perhaps none of that was true and maybe
some "Russians" (the government? or not? who knows!) bought a bunch of
Facebook ads--all far more innocuous than any of the rhetoric being spewed by
Americans during the 2016 election season--for $10,000, and that is supposed
to, uhm... have significantly swayed peoples' opinions such that they voted
Trump into office? (Because if there's one thing I saw during 2016, it was
vehemently anti-Trump people do a full 180 on their opinions! /s)

Until somebody does some actual reporting and breaks down the whole "Russia
hacking/meddling with the election/our democracy" narrative in a way that not
only I can understand, but the average American voter can understand, I see
little choice but to believe that the entire thing is a confluence of several
media-spun narratives that were repeated to us over and over until it was
"common knowledge" that "Russia hacked the election" (whatever that means?)
and/or "Russia meddled with our democracy" (whatever THAT means??).

Many of the accusations I see flying around social media and news sources
sound incredibly dire, and something I should be freaking out about (not that
anyone would have any ulterior motive to get myself and the rest of the
American electorate to freak out about political matters, of course!)-- if
that's the case, how is this information not yet out there in a clear, easily-
understandable format for all to see?

If anyone wants to break down their understanding of the situation for me--
WITHOUT consulting any sources, just your own current internal understanding
of the situation is--I'd be grateful, because this whole thing seems to be one
of the least-clear political issues in recent memory, and it seems to me that
certain political and media forces are just trying to scare everyone with
vague, often contradictory claims that intentionally muddy the real underlying
issues at play.

~~~
pas
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547766](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17547766)

------
lagadu
I find the irony in so many Americans being outraged at a foreign state
influencing another state's elections to be deliciously intoxicating.

~~~
mc32
I think it’s mostly redirecting dissatisfaction. Dems waaay underperformed and
need to find a scapegoat rather than look internally and see why people
switched.

But no, they rather blame others, be they foreign or even within the party:
right now the Dems can’t decide if they are 1980s Dems or 1920s Workers
Partiers.

~~~
gnode
> why people switched.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't so much that many people switched parties,
but that typical Democrat voter turnout was low, reflecting some amount of
disillusionment.

Also, what you say about the Democrats' identity crisis seems to mirror what's
been happening with Labour (the left party) in the UK.

~~~
akhilcacharya
>reflecting some amount of disillusionment

Disillusionment through propaganda and well-timed leaks of stolen documents by
a foreign, hostile power.

~~~
mc32
Does the source of the leaks matter? Does it matter that it was Wikileaks,
AccessHollywood, Guccifer? Either something is true or it isn’t.

~~~
orf
Absolutely the source matters as well as the contents.

You could ask yourself why the Russians penetrated the RNC but decided not to
release any dirt. Perhaps you could ask yourself if this has any bearing on
Trump's Russia stance? Could he be unable to admit meddling for fear of
undermining his very legitimacy? As a result of this is the head of state
feuding with the unanimous conclusion of his (+allies) intelligence agencies
good for anyone? Who would that be?

This is why the source matters. Because things are always leaked with intent,
and by missing that intent and being distracted by shiny talking points you're
missing the whole story. Both matter, equally.

~~~
mc32
So let’s say (presume) Russia has goods on Trump, and we all know they had at
least some goods on Hillary. I think then it would be fair to presume they
could get the goods on anyone. If that’s the case, how can anyone do anything
against this kind of adversary without someone saying “Ha, you’re taking/not
taking an action because Russia is in your pocket!” Or whatever.

~~~
akhilcacharya
> So let’s say (presume) Russia has goods on Trump, and we all know they had
> at least some goods on Hillary

Why do we have to "presume" they do about Trump and "know" they had some goods
on Hillary?

------
inamberclad
> Subway SquarePants

------
ashelmire
Lots of techbros posting here missing the point. If you can't make sense of
these groups and these ad buys, you're not familiar with Foundations of
Geopolitics, which is assigned as a textbook in Russian military academies and
was very well received there. The point of all of it is to encourage
separation and discord along racial, ethnic, and political lines, and
generally disrupt the American political process and international clout. Read
a bit on that with some brief summaries
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics)

>In the United States: Russia should use its special services within the
borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance,
provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical
disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism
and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident
movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing
internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense
simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".

They've had _resounding_ success with this strategy thus far.

~~~
jshevek
I don't see how calling people that disagree with you 'techbros' qualifies as
either 'discussing in good faith' nor meeting the standards of hackernews.

~~~
ashelmire
Sure, sorry if that offended you, I'll refrain from using that here in the
future. It's a shorthand for the people commenting here not adding anything to
the discussion and projecting one aspect that I associate with the oft-derided
"tech libertarian" culture - that is, that nothing every really happens,
coupled with an unwillingness to dig deeper to find a deeper understanding of
the issue at hand.

If you think the ~15 other posts here saying "I don't get it, these aren't
election meddling" are adding more to the conversation than my comment because
you were offended at the word, then I think perhaps you should continue
reading the rest of it. Psyops is real, Russia does it, the US does it, and
sowing dissent and funding extremist political groups in our country is a
known part of Russia's global political strategy.

------
hartator
It's a very nice looking tool, but hijacking scrolling is always a bad call.

~~~
tomswartz07
With my small touchpad on my laptop, I was unable to even get past the first
entry. Closed the tab instantly after that.

I'm sure the info was enlightening, but totally unreadable to me.

~~~
apk-d
I'm guessing they optimized for mobile and forgot that desktop is still a
thing. Works pretty decently on Firefox on my Android phone. I usually prefer
text documents to "apps" that hijack scrolling but this one seemed usable
enough for me (apart from search which is difficult to get to and fails to
fetch any results).

------
ebikelaw
In the running for worst presentation ever. Most of this doesn’t seem to even
be rendering on Chrome/iOS and the parts that do render disappear as soon as I
get them where I want them on the screen.

