Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghostcluster | Hacker News Reader

This article keeps ridiculously pushing the false narrative that Facebook and "the Russians" are responsible for the outcome of the 2016 election. The amount of placed advertisments on Facebook from shadowy Russian sources was miniscule and had nothing to do with the massive rallies of people and the media coverage of the Trump campaign. $100,000 of ad buys on Facebook swung the election and caused this horror?

It is such a dishonest narrative.

I thought it would be a story about the wider cultural effects of social media and Facebook, but it was more partisan conspiracy theories.

I'm disapointed in Vanity Fair for running this type of piece.

View on HN

The left has needed a scapegoat since election night.

It has ranged from:

* Bernie Sanders (second pick for Democrat candidate)

* James Comey (former FBI Director)

* Huma Abedin (deputy chief of staff for Clinton Campaign)

* Russian hackers

* Vladimir Putin (President of Russia)

* Wikileaks (ie: more Russian hackers)

* the Benghazi Committee

* the "Basket of Deplorables" (ie: white America)

* white women (ie: 53% of white women voted for Trump)

* white men (ie: universally reviled by progressive supremacists everywhere)

It seems the Democratic Party will never recover as it is more fragmented than ever, with ailing Nancy Pelosi and out-of-touch NYC urbanite Chuck Schumer being the only notable Democrats as of late. All they can do is respond with righteous indignation rather than form a coherent party platform, especially given extremists of all flavors left-of-center being unable to form anything beyond a rickety coalition under shredded banner of "Democrat."

Self-reflection and soul-searching is totally beyond the left's comprehension.

Clinton was just an awful candidate and the shrieking of the liberal media -- from WaPo to CNN to has-been celebrities -- was (and continues to be) tasteless. Whether Clinton's campaign was ever more than "shame on everybody that won't vote for me, also it's a woman's turn now" is irrelevant because that was the only message that got out there.

I would love to see a candidate campaign on, specifically, "tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect." The Democratic Party has truly abandoned tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect, and returning to it would go a long way to bridging the ever-widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.

The "left" being the centre right Democratic party?

Understand "left" as a political marketing strategy rather than a political ideology, and referring to the Democrats as left wing will make sense to you again.

Wow, I guess both parties do have something in common afterall: they're both political marketing machines and less about political idealogy.

This is very complicated. In my country we do have a progressive/popular left wing and a liberal/conservative right wing, but people following the discussion in the US thinks the liberal right are left wing. It makes our political discussion go very low.

Well that's precisely it. The political spectrum is quite well defined. One doesn't become left in the absence of an actual left. It's not a wholly relative measurement. Blue doesn't become green in the absence of green.

I don't think the political spectrum is in any way well defined - you can come up with left- or right-sounding justifications for pretty much any specific policy you care to, and if you look back across the decades or to different countries, you can make left or right mean anything you want. The only consistency is that the left pretends to care about the poor, while the right pretends to be competent.

> the "Basket of Deplorables" (ie: white America)

That phrase didn't refer to "white America"-- it referred to white supremacists.

The problem was that Clinton rankly speculated that half of Trump's supporters were made up of white supremacists, in a futile effort to divide his base. And later in that same paragraph she said this:

"He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million."

Even if Clinton's statistics were even close to correct, it was a counterproductive statement. Trump voters who were white supremacists were energized by being attacked directly by Clinton. Trump voters who were not white supremacists were energized by the likelihood that Clinton was exaggerating the numbers to spread FUD and misdirect from her own historically low polling numbers as a presidential candidate. And Bernie supporters who were on the fence wondered why Clinton was name-calling Trump supporters when a large part of Bernie's appeal had been the exact opposite kind of behavior-- instead employing care and caution when referring to the grievances of Trump supporters-- as a primary candidate.

But more importantly, presidential candidates don't just improvise new phrases like that in the middle of speeches. Has there been anything written about who authored that phrase for Clinton and why they did it?

Edit: clarification

And any white man who voted for Trump was labeled a white supremacist and went in the basket. Just like any vocal supporter is labeled a Nazi. It's a joke.

> That phrase didn't refer to "white America"-- it referred to white supremacists.

Actually, it was much broader than "white supremacists". Here's the quote:

They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it.

If someone is critical of arbitrary elevation of black and latino people above white people, are they racist?

If someone is critical of arbitrary elevation of women above men, are they racist?

If someone is critical of unrestricted immigration, are they xenophobic?

If someone is critical of violent political expression steeped in Islamic ideology, are they Islamophobic?

---

Let me be clear, I am by no means advocating that one particular race is superior over another and I wholeheartedly reject discrimination and prejudice based on race or ethnicity.

Furthermore, I am all for protecting women from sexual violence and ensuring women have the right to vote, right to hold public office, right have equal rights in family law, and so many other rights and freedoms that women (and men!) have fought for.

Additionally, I am all for legal immigration where (for example) high-value applicants are expedited.

And finally, I have absolutely no dislike or fear of Islamic cultures and peoples, nor do I regard Islam as a dangerous political force.

Great comment!

In addition to "tolerance, shared responsibility and mutual respect" it would be awesome to see a candidate with a platform that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (i.e. the middle) which is what I think most Americans have wanted for decades.

Unfortunately, wedge politics and the two party system has driven the electorate to a game of political ping pong for those same decades in a single file march toward an ever increasing indebted, imperialistic, totalitarian police state

It's really actually quite difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

You can be fiscally conservative and socially neutral maybe or socially laissez faire but not socially progressive or socially liberal.

If you want social liberalism, money has to be spent on programs that enable social progress or has to be spent on enforcement of socially liberal laws and regulations, (history has shown it won't happen otherwise). This is the opposite of what we know fiscal conservatism to be in America.

I know this sounds nitpickish, but the closest you can get is to say something like I want liberal policies as cheaply as possible and unfortunately for those who want to claim the middle with that, that's essentially the policy of liberalism and the left. That's what liberals want too...

What socially liberal, fiscally conservative generally means is I don't care what you do but I don't wanna pay for it and that's not the middle, that's libertarian.

Sorry for the rant but I'm generally tired of seeing a claim for the middle being used as a substitute for I want socially liberal policies but I don't want to feel bad about not fully supporting them because I don't wanna give up any money...

This probably isn't you of course, but it sure is a lot of people who claim to be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"

Your definition of socially liberal is quite different from most people’s.. every time I see this it just seems like arguing with yourself for the sake of arguing.

I don't buy that social liberalism and expensive welfare programs go hand in hand. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to broach society with progressivism sans nanny state sans righteous indignation.

While libertarian ideology may be akin to some brand of utilitarian nihilism, we don't have to lower ourselves to that level of impersonal cold distance. Government need not be devoid of personality for us to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

We don't need to give way to expensive social welfare programs in order to have a clean conscience.

This is a very reasonable comment.

The primary difference between being socially liberal and socially conservative is the idea of the government’s role in our lives (and more generally, collectivism vs. individualism). The socially liberal concepts of universal health care, social security, welfare, public schools and universities, environmental regulations and others all require funding in the form of taxation and then spending in form of government programs.

This type of taxation and the growth of government spending goes against the basic principles of fiscal conservatism.

Until robot-powered post-scarcity and UI changes the fundamental structure of society and government, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is a paradox.

Yeah, by socially liberal I meant small government that stays out of my bedroom and wallet. I can see how the term can mean something else to others.

When I think of liberal, I think of people like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. I realize my US-bias is showing, but when the country was founded the idea of a country where liberty was to be maximized was inconceivable. Currently, the people called conservatives are trying to conserve the liberal ideas of the late 18th century.

According to Wikipedia,

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."

I think universal health care is fundamentally incompatible with both civil liberties and economic freedom.

What some consider progress, like more centralized power from elites that live X,000s miles away, others consider a regression. The biggest problem with monarchies was not their bloodline-based successions or validation by the Pope, it was their highly-centralized power.

This election proved that socially liberal fiscally conservative is far less appealing to most libertarians seem to think. Trump went back to “deficits don’t matter” - not just in office like Bush and Reagan and co but on the campaign trail!

>out-of-touch NYC urbanite Chuck Schumer

NYC urbanite? Hmm that sounds like another politician I know.

> awful candidate

An awful candidate wouldn’t win the PV

> shrieking of the liberal media

You’re aware that the National Review had a cover story dedicated to stopping Trump right? Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Goerge Will and David Brooks all opposed him through today.

> tolerance, shared responsibility, and mutual respect

That sounds a lot like “Stronger Together”, the slogan of the defeated candidate.

Not only were the amount of ads bought miniscule, Russia simply wouldn't have the ability to target them nearly as well as the Trump campaign could. While there was a conspiracy theory going around on social media that Russia had used hacked copies of the electoral registrations to micro-target voters, it was ridiculous - political campaigns have official access to that data and have to spend huge amounts of volunteer time collecting enough info to do even basic targeting because it simply doesn't exist otherwise. (Which is why a newer conspiracy theory says the Trump campaign gave them the targeting info.)

Exactly, like most conspiracy theories they will continue to retrofit the narrative to match the evidence, no matter how weak the connection, then they'll just fill in the gaps with imagination.

Takes about 10 seconds for any digital marketer to look at the spend and reach and call bs. Unless of course they have some ominous fantasy of this 'only being the tip of the iceberg'

Totally agree; it was too obvious after the upset Trump victory when the Dems immediately started going down the list of scapegoats – especially Russia. I really don't think Russia's influence comes close to domestic influence, especially after looking at the billions spent by the U.S. campaigns.

And I've been very disappointed in U.S. mainstream press for repeating these partisan talking points with very little objective analysis. They complain about RT meddling in our election but our own consolidated media has opened the door to all of this IMO.

The right has Obama birth certificate conspiracies, the left has Russian election conspiracies. Different sides of the same stupid coin.

True. The difference in scope, however, is critical.

One was rather irrelevant, while the other will result in more distant relations with our Cold War rival, serious witch-hunting, and most importantly: further polarization of the U.S. political climate.

You don't think the "you don't belong here" undertones (both of Mr. Obama personally and blacks in general) weren't polarizing?

"You lie!" was such a telling moment.

And perhaps more pernicious than the disrespect to the man while in office is the way it has tainted everything he did. Obamacare, modeled after a Republican health care reform, must be repealed; the Iran deal must be torn up; hell, they didn't even let him put a Supreme Court Justice on the bench.

The GOP basically decided that Kenyan-born interloper was illegitimate and thus everything he did was too.

And then they elected the guy that made those claims popular again!

Remember, birtherism was relegated to the fringe (basically just Orly Taitz) until Trump revived it in 2011 and nearly started beating Romney in the polls. Sure enough, the same thing happened when he called Mexicans and illegal immigrants rapists and murderers.

People are fooling themselves if they think a big part of Trumps ascendancy isn’t pure racial animus.

I still think his ascendancy is due to economic depression in the interior. This isn't mutually exclusive with your view though. Racism and xenophobia are always ascendant during times of economic stress, and the state sometimes encourages this as a place to direct the peoples' anger. Trump and Bannon are selling an old brand of opiate.

When a foreign power attacks us the last thing I’ll worry about is “more distant relations with our rival”.

If they wanted to keep decent relations they shouldn’t have invaded Ukraine and shot down an airliner.

I don't think the Washington Post was posting 5 times a day about Obama birth certificates.

Fox News & Breitbart were...

I think the focus on "fake news" is in part a deflection from the mainstream media's own poor coverage of the 2016 race. For instance, all of the coverage the week before the election was about how Comey's bombshell letter upended the race - yet in the end, that letter turned out to be nothing.

It's a little unsettling to see the media do a terrible job, scream "look over their!", and then try to present themselves as the great defenders of American democracy.

You’re doing exactly what the cloistered FB articles in the article are doing... just taking it as an assumption that the story is false and that you are under attack. How do you know this?

FWIW, I do agree that the wider cultural impact of Facebook is more important than any specific instance of foreign meddling, but that’s not the subject of the article. The article is about the people at Facebook, and if the Russian interference is what they are focusing on, even if they’re wrong, then that is what the article will mention.

There are plenty of stories about the social impact of Facebook if that’s the subject matter you want.

I am not. Facebook released numbers about their political ads and they don't stack up in any way with the kind of narrative Vanity Fair is trying to spin.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russi...

$100,000 in Facebook ads versus billions in advertising spending from the DNC and RNC? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/hillary-clin...

It is a manufactured conspiracy theory.

Campaign ads paid by a foreign actor are illegal in the United States regardless of how much money exchanged hands.

Given the resources available to these state actors, isn’t it possible that the easily tracked $100k spend is the tip of an iceberg?

> Given the resources available to these state actors, isn’t it possible that the easily tracked $100k spend is the tip of an iceberg?

No. That would be a conspiracy theory.

And beyond the miniscule amount in ad spending, you also have to accept that a small number of political ads on Facebook swung the election in the States that Clinton lost.

How are you so certain that new information won't come out about this? What do you base that on?

If there's one constant in the investigations, it is the steady drip of new facts. In fact, it is self-assured reactions like the above that have destroyed a lot of people's credibility on the topic.

Anything might be revealed in the future. Someone might prove that Trump was brainwashed and programmed by Russia, or that Hillary ordered the murder of Seth Rich.

That's just speculation. We can only base rational discussion on the information available to us now.

Right, and we know the electoral college victory came down to 77,000 votes in 3 states.

And the two parties spent $2.5 billion on an election in which about 125 million votes were cast. $20 per vote.

At that rate, even if the Russians ads we're discussing had all been targeted at the Presidential election in those 3 states (far from true), that only equals about 5,000 votes.

Further assuming that 2/3's of votes aren't changeable and the $2.5 billion was spent to influence the remaining third, we're talking about 1500 votes influenced.

If we're smuggling in finance terms, I'd call it closer to investment than speculation. There is a near-certainty Mueller's team isn't noodling over nothing, and the targets of their investigation are acting in ways that are consistent with there being some there there. And that's only one investigation.

And I brought up credibility because one important facet that seems to be serially forgotten is that the major targets of the investigations have already destroyed their credibility, as have many commentators. I would encourage some googling to look at the past claims people make - more often than not you're hearing assertions of tribal fidelity rather than arguments based on factual exploration, and one bit of that information available to us now is a fair amount of background on motivations.

> We can only base rational discussion on the information available to us now.

This is false. We are planning animals. We do what-if projections constantly. In fact, we can't not do it - you did it yourself to make an implicit argument above attempting to make any forward-looking seem silly.

If Russian influence is purely a conspiracy theory, you have to explain why the FBI, the previous President, multiple Senators on relevant committees, and other Americans with access to confidential information are propagating it. And then you’re right back in conspiracy theory territory.

'For political leverage' is the answer that does not require a conspiracy theory to explain it.

Given the scale of lying necessary (former POTUS, all of FBI etc.), it is the very definition of a conspiracy...?

It wouldn't be the first time that large sections of the US political classes fell for conspiracy theories about Russia.

Conspiracy theory? How so? We know that Russia spent some amount >= $100,000 on campaign ads, and guessing the actual amount comes down to how good you think Facebook is at resolving accounts to people who don't want to be found. I don't think it's completely unreasonably to think that the actual amount of Russian spending was on the order of $1-10 million.

But that's not even significant when you look at the billions spent by U.S. campaigns and orgs. Few hundred thousand from Russia isn't enough to do anything.

> Facebook released numbers

There is a problem right there, if there was state funded/directed interference in US elections then Facebook have every incentive to downplay and hide this.

How many times in the last 2-3 years has facebook claimed there was no problem with something, and then later changed their story?

Off the top of my head I can think of at least two instances where they blatantly miscounted the amount they charged advertisers for paid traffic they never sent, and that's without even getting into zuck's wild claims that fb had zero effect on the 2016 election, and then months later admitting that was completely wrong.

There is very little reason to trust 'facebook releasing numbers' on this issue. They have EVERY reason to obfuscate, stall, and misreport on it - they are complicit in an extremely serious federal crime.

While I agree with both the GP and your post, it seems worthwhile to note that GP isn't attacking the individuals for their views, even if wrong. He's attacking Vanity Fair's decision that their opinions are newsworthy, especially when they appear to push a strong narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com