that's also a stat for just one of the hundreds(probably thousands) of foreign troll farms.
I shared some. Facebook testified that between 2015 and 2017 an American Facebook user would have to scroll through 22K pieces of content on the Facebook newsfeed to come across one piece of content from the Internet Research Agency (Kremlin backed troll farm). Why don’t you guys ever share that piece of data?
Question: Did that statistic take into account the algorithm?
If you take the number of Russian content pieces and divide that by the total number of pieces of content on Facebook, is that where the 22,000 number comes from?
Let's be honest. Your Facebook feed looks much different from mine. Yours likely has alot of links to right-leaning sources, mine has a lot of half-naked Korean dancing girls (hey...I don't judge).
It is my understanding that the Russian troll farm was not only generating false content, but specifically targeting certain demographics / voting areas (like Wisconsin / Michigan / Pennsylvania).
It is a somewhat devious system. The majority of your Facebook friends are likely relatively local to you. All it takes is one of your friends to click on the Russian link and comment on it, and now your friends in your same demographic and region will also see that same post. Even if you just read your friends post (without actually clicking on the link), the algorithm is still tracking how long you linger on stories. It now thinks that you have an interest in those sources and will give you more of it. The odds of you seeing a Russian Troll post just went up by a factor of 10.
So yeah, statistics can be telling, but there are broad statistics and focused statistics. The average American may have needed to go through 22,000 links to see a Russian one. But a voter in a swing state like Wisconsin in Kenosha county, that number might be closer to 1 in 500.
I can't find the link but I read recently that 20 of the top 25 "Christian" Facebook pages are actually run by foreign troll farms.
I shared some. Facebook testified that between 2015 and 2017 an American Facebook user would have to scroll through 22K pieces of content on the Facebook newsfeed to come across one piece of content from the Internet Research Agency (Kremlin backed troll farm). Why don’t you guys ever share that piece of data?
So yeah, statistics can be telling, but there are broad statistics and focused statistics. The average American may have needed to go through 22,000 links to see a Russian one. But a voter in a swing state like Wisconsin in Kenosha county, that number might be closer to 1 in 500.
Dude. Cut it out. This issue has been litigated to death. Hundreds of hours of congressional testimony. Gallons of ink spilled on intel assessments and Special prosecutor investigations. If after all that, all you can offer is conjecture and speculation, it means you are suffering cognitive dissonance. Show me the proof that battle ground states were targeted more, with specifically election related content. In numbers. or stfu
Dude. Cut it out. This issue has been litigated to death. Hundreds of hours of congressional testimony. Gallons of ink spilled on intel assessments and Special prosecutor investigations. If after all that, all you can offer is conjecture and speculation, it means you are suffering cognitive dissonance. Show me the proof that battle ground states were targeted more, with specifically election related content. In numbers. or stfu
It is known that the Russians targeted specific areas (see the link below). As we have said, the numbers for exactly how many people were affected are not known. You are taking one generic stat (1 in 22,000), but Facebook has stated that 29 million Americans directly received one of their posts, and between liking / sharing, it likely reached up to 126 million Americans. As Highlife noted, the 1 in 22,000 is only talking about Facebook. There is also Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, and even just normal email that was also targeted.
This is a link that examines the evolution of the continued attempts in 2020.
"Geographic targeting
Geographically, these accounts specifically target battleground states including Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona."
So yes, they absolutely had the capability to target specific areas demographics.
I am on the record as saying that Russian interference was not the deciding factor in Trump winning (Hillary deleting her emails, IMO, was the biggest factor), but there is absolutely no doubt that the Russians did this. They will do it again, and next time it might be to help the Democrat nominee. Not because they really care about who is the president, they just laugh their asses off watching us try to rip each other apart.
If you want to write it off as no big deal, so be it, but don't come back bitching about it in 2028 if Russians put AOC in the white house.
@squeakyclean The John Brennan center for justice. Come on dude. Get serious.
Also, that discusses the 2020 election. As you note. Why post it?
@squeakyclean You want to discuss other platforms? Sure. The truly fascinating thing about these Russian influence operations is just how little of their content is actually focused on the election.
Russian trolls were a thing before 2016, they were a thing after, and they continue to be. Problem is, the Obama intel community took ordinary Russian behavior wrt U.S. elections and tried to frame it as extra-ordinary. The poorly informed, many of whom are in this thread went along, and it tarnished a presidency. That is unconcionable and is a massive stain on Obama's legacy.
@squeakyclean The John Brennan center for justice. Come on dude. Get serious.
Also, that discusses the 2020 election. As you note. Why post it?
Feel free to provide links that disproves the information in the link. They are showing samples of the kind of posts that the Russians are making.
While it discusses the 2020 election, it is discussing what was done in 2016 and how it was still being done in 2020. So the information is pertinent to the argument.
(Note: Work just dropped a bombshell on me, so I wont get to post for a while).
@squeakyclean The John Brennan center for justice. Come on dude. Get serious.
Also, that discusses the 2020 election. As you note. Why post it?
Feel free to provide links that disproves the information in the link. They are showing samples of the kind of posts that the Russians are making.
While it discusses the 2020 election, it is discussing what was done in 2016 and how it was still being done in 2020. So the information is pertinent to the argument.
(Note: Work just dropped a bombshell on me, so I wont get to post for a while).
@squeakyclean There's not a lot of useful information in that link. Essentially the lady is saying, these Russian internet trolls are displaying all the characteristics of internet trolls. Capped off with a call for heavier internet censorship. Tell me, what piece of information in there did you find insightful?
And attacking the source is 100% valid in this case. Brennan is quite literally the architect of the disinformation campaign wrt Trump/ Russia collusion and you cited his think tank.
Gotta keep bumping this because it's a real scandal. Granted, Gabbard is overselling it, I don't know why this administration keeps doing that. Certainly not "treason" in my view and unlikely anything criminal. But at minimum it's a massive breach of professional ethics and norms the likes of which haven't been seen coming out of the oval in decades.
Two things have come into focus since Gabbard's document dump.
1. In spite of intelligence assessments to the contrary and protestations of the intel community, the highest levels of the Obama administration hatched a plan to smear Trump and undercut his presidency between December 2016 and January 2017, turning away assessments and contriving their own report with no evidentiary basis.
2. It is highly unlikely Putin's influence campaign was intended to to help win Trump the election. We now know he had intel on Clinton that he held back assuming she would win the election. There was never an evidentiary basis for claiming Putin preferred Trump to Clinton.
Now. Most of us who pay attention had surmised this for some time. But it has to be a shock to some of the blinkard leftists on this board.
We’ve known 2 for awhile. No one thought Trump would win. Putin was putting out shit to delegitimize the electoral system and eventual president. No doubt they do it every election.Gotta keep bumping this because it's a real scandal. Granted, Gabbard is overselling it, I don't know why this administration keeps doing that. Certainly not "treason" in my view and unlikely anything criminal. But at minimum it's a massive breach of professional ethics and norms the likes of which haven't been seen coming out of the oval in decades.
Two things have come into focus since Gabbard's document dump.
1. In spite of intelligence assessments to the contrary and protestations of the intel community, the highest levels of the Obama administration hatched a plan to smear Trump and undercut his presidency between December 2016 and January 2017, turning away assessments and contriving their own report with no evidentiary basis.
2. It is highly unlikely Putin's influence campaign was intended to to help win Trump the election. We now know he had intel on Clinton that he held back assuming she would win the election. There was never an evidentiary basis for claiming Putin preferred Trump to Clinton.
Now. Most of us who pay attention had surmised this for some time. But it has to be a shock to some of the blinkard leftists on this board.
Since Hilary was the prohibitive favorite, it makes sense he would target her more.
But on #1, why is this known only now and not during Trump’s first term?
@squeakyclean I’m sure it was just coincidence that Paul Manafort gave Russia campaign polling data. And that Trump didn’t know anything about it. ( general reply, not just to you)
@carramrod Wait, you are honestly claiming that Putin didn’t prefer Trump to Hillary? Putin hated Hillary and he knew she was smart. He’d dealt with her before… and then he’d dealt with Trump and knew exactly what motivated him.
Trump administration incompetence?We’ve known 2 for awhile. No one thought Trump would win. Putin was putting out shit to delegitimize the electoral system and eventual president. No doubt they do it every election.
Since Hilary was the prohibitive favorite, it makes sense he would target her more.
But on #1, why is this known only now and not during Trump’s first term?
We’ve known 2 for awhile. No one thought Trump would win. Putin was putting out shit to delegitimize the electoral system and eventual president. No doubt they do it every election.Gotta keep bumping this because it's a real scandal. Granted, Gabbard is overselling it, I don't know why this administration keeps doing that. Certainly not "treason" in my view and unlikely anything criminal. But at minimum it's a massive breach of professional ethics and norms the likes of which haven't been seen coming out of the oval in decades.
Two things have come into focus since Gabbard's document dump.
1. In spite of intelligence assessments to the contrary and protestations of the intel community, the highest levels of the Obama administration hatched a plan to smear Trump and undercut his presidency between December 2016 and January 2017, turning away assessments and contriving their own report with no evidentiary basis.
2. It is highly unlikely Putin's influence campaign was intended to to help win Trump the election. We now know he had intel on Clinton that he held back assuming she would win the election. There was never an evidentiary basis for claiming Putin preferred Trump to Clinton.
Now. Most of us who pay attention had surmised this for some time. But it has to be a shock to some of the blinkard leftists on this board.
Since Hilary was the prohibitive favorite, it makes sense he would target her more.
But on #1, why is this known only now and not during Trump’s first term?
Good question
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2020.
The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.
The report has never before been released to the public, and instead, has remained highly classified within the intelligence community………….
The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier, despite knowing it was based largely on "internet rumor," as Fox News Digital previously reported.
Long story short. The Biden administration shelved it. The Democrats don’t have much shame Brad.
The future Biden administration, before anyone even thought Biden had a chance to be elected President, got the Trump administration to bury "it," obviously. Republican leaders of the Intelligence Community agencies and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, led by Rubio in the Senate, decided to go along. It's a conspiracy of 100s of people. Maybe thousands. Everyone is out to get President Trump, don't you know this?But on #1, why is this known only now and not during Trump’s first term?