New Facebook Tool Tells Users If They’ve Liked or Followed Russia’s “Troll Army”

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Facebook has rolled out its new hub to help some users figure out if they interacted with Russian propaganda during the 2016 US presidential election. The social giant’s tool specifically allows users to see if they followed or “Liked” any pages and accounts set up by Kremlin-backed trolls on either Facebook or Instagram.

Because the feature only reveals if users directly liked or followed pages on Facebook or Instagram, it won’t alert users who viewed the propaganda on their news feeds or read the articles without actively following the accounts. The tool is also limited to pages associated with the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and doesn’t include other fake news purveyors.
 
From what I can tell, the point wasn't to get a particular candidate elected(we were boned either way), it was to make the partisanship worse. Not sure we needed much help in that regard.
 
Other 'fake news'? It doesn't include it? You mean like basically every single govcorp news agency that exists?
 
Dead Parrot said:
From what I can tell, the point wasn't to get a particular candidate elected(we were boned either way), it was to make the partisanship worse. Not sure we needed much help in that regard.
Click to expand...

I think the whole point of the propaganda was to make people generally feel that we were boned either way, but it was primarily to get Bernie voters to vote for Trump. Putin has a deep hatred for Hillary.
 
I'm sure these people will appreciate the mark of gullibility appearing here and there, should go over well /s
 
Anyone else try using the page and just get the message it's not available in your location right now? Seems it's a US only feature possibly.
 
The Guardian has made many great articles, and broken many very important stories in the past, but in the past many years, during a time which it has admitted it is bleeding money (which is said is why it has switched to a tabloid format), it has increasingly descended into base propaganda, and has increasingly feed into the Russophobic hysteria. Largely to appeal to people's worst instincts and to make some money from sensationalism.

Judging by the comments for the Daily Mail article concerning the same story, UK residents don't buy the USA's Russophobia at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...an-propaganda-Facebook-tell-you.html#comments

The comments there are a breath of mountain-fresh air, IMO.


Also, The Guardian stopped allowing comments on its Russia-related articles I think because every time they had their comments sections open for them, virtually their entire reader base was mocking the Russophobia, and calling out The Guardian for being propaganda. I think The Guardian wanted to control the narrative a little more, and so stopped having comments on those articles.
 
Last edited:
doesn't it like represent only 0.1% of all political campaign ads?

and that these ads don't actually touch on the campaign directly, but only highlights social issues which are still plaguing the US till today.
 
We get it. We didn't think trump could win. Please stop making up boogey men to explain it a year later :/
 
theBrownLlama said:
doesn't it like represent only 0.1% of all political campaign ads?

and that these ads don't actually touch on the campaign directly, but only highlights social issues which are still plaguing the US till today.
Click to expand...

That's the whole premise behind Soviet style propaganda.
"Whataboutism" (That's an actual word)

"Yes, we have problems, but what about the west and their problems?"
"Are we so different?"
Stuff like that.

It's done to deflect questions about problems at home, by pointing out how other, better off, nations have problems of their own.
In this way, people stop thinking and just accept the problems they have at home, because a richer nation has the same, or even more problems, than their own, poorer, nation has.

Every nation has their problems, yes, but nothing is going to get fixed by pointing fingers. (That's not to say that throwing wrenches into the gearbox will fix things either)
 
MrDeaf said:
That's the whole premise behind Soviet style propaganda.
"Whataboutism" (That's an actual word)

"Yes, we have problems, but what about the west and their problems?"
"Are we so different?"
Stuff like that.

It's done to deflect questions about problems at home, by pointing out how other, better off, nations have problems of their own.
In this way, people stop thinking and just accept the problems they have at home, because a richer nation has the same, or even more problems, than their own, poorer, nation has.

Every nation has their problems, yes, but nothing is going to get fixed by pointing fingers. (That's not to say that throwing wrenches into the gearbox will fix things either)
Click to expand...

The concept of "whataboutism" is a logical fallacy, and a propaganda tool that intimidates various information from being presented and considered by people. "Whattaboutism" is about stigmatizing counter-arguments, and reducing the scope of information recognition down to the narrow pre-determined conclusion that the person who appeals to "whattaboutism" seeks to have accepted.

Anytime somebody claims that an argument is "whattaboutism", they're not being honest, and their goal is to block out any challenging thought and information by forcing bias and prejudice upon a subject.

To consider means to take all things into account, and the truth is what all considerations taken into account add up to. When you've blocked out some information by claiming it's "whataboutism", then you've invalidated the topic and are no longer working towards the truth, but instead a pre-determined self-preferred false conclusion.

Whataboutism is not a defection, because bringing up similarities doesn't change the topic, but adds context, example, and pionts to it. Whereas claims of "whataboutism" themselves are deflections, meant to dismiss any information, experience, relateable incidents that challenge the whataboutism-caller's view. It's about dismissing information that is unfavourable to the whataboutism-caller's argument.

"Whataboutism" is a false logical fallacy, while the concept "whataboutism" as a valid complaint is itself a logical fallacy.

Further, the foundation for thinking that information is dismissable on grounds of being "whataboutism" is hypocrisy.



It's done to deflect questions about problems at home, by pointing out how other, better off, nations have problems of their own.
In this way, people stop thinking and just accept the problems they have at home, because a richer nation has the same, or even more problems, than their own, poorer, nation has.
Click to expand...
That isn't at all what bringing up relateable situations does. Bringing up relateable situations adds consideration and experience to a perception, and makes the intentions of the speakers and the meaning of their information (and therefore the purpose of the discussion) come into greater clarity.

Calling "whataboutism" "is done to dismiss all productive and honest discussion for the sake of, as you put it, "pointing fingers". Calling "whataboutism" is a person pointing a finger out of disingenuous intent, and then saying, 'but you're not allowed to point the same finger back at me'. It's a tool of lowest-common-denominator mentality propagandists and trolls that aren't seeking to discuss and establish the truth, but are seeking to 'win' and defeat other perspectives. It's hypocrisy, dishonesty, deceit, bias, prejudice... what calling "whataboutism" isn't, is a valid discussion or debate tool.

"Whataboutism" is only claimed by people who are trying to just label somebody else, or some nation, or some topic as bad, without there being any constructive purpose to doing so. It's only meant to stigmatize and bias discussions in the favour of the person who cries "whataboutism". And the only who cry "whataboutism" are those whose arguments fall apart as soon as more details are taken into consideration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Croak
like this
Dead Parrot said:
From what I can tell, the point wasn't to get a particular candidate elected(we were boned either way), it was to make the partisanship worse. Not sure we needed much help in that regard.
Click to expand...

It's my belief they were trying to "collude" with both sides (and to some extent succeeded on both accounts) with the intention of fomenting discord. But you're right, we didn't need much help, as it seems movers in our intelligence community have taken it upon themselves to manipulate the system. We had division under Obama, sure (I was not a fan), but people didn't act and react like they are now over Trump which frankly is at the point of ridiculousness. Of course, the roots of the intelligence problems lie in the Obama administration (Snowden et al.) as it was a susceptible presidency (and ended up with Clinton's hands in it) but either way the idea that Russia "troll" ads on FaceBook have led us to this point is downright certifiable. If anything, they're symptomatic of the sickness that has crept into the country over the last decade. People were aware of that, consciously or not, and responded in kind by electing Trump, and whether for good or ill that's a reflection of the fact that the system is broken and people who can't accept that reality would rather we all live in denial by pointing fingers at Russia.
 
Last edited:
UrielDagda said:
I think the whole point of the propaganda was to make people generally feel that we were boned either way, but it was primarily to get Bernie voters to vote for Trump. Putin has a deep hatred for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Progressives didn't need Russian propaganda to vote against Hillary. Her public/private policies, paid wall street speeches, and DNC collusion/voter suppression that disenfranchised millions were enough to turn people away. Yet, even with all this, far less Bernie supporters voted for Trump than Clinton supporters voted for McCain.
 
So their attempt to label stuff they disagree with as "fake news" failed, so now they plan to try to call it Russia propaganda? What the hell business is it to Facebook anyway of what people post on their own pages or like, other than they are busy bodies that have some ulterior motive?
 
Dead Parrot said:
From what I can tell, the point wasn't to get a particular candidate elected(we were boned either way), it was to make the partisanship worse. Not sure we needed much help in that regard.
Click to expand...
The whole point was Hillary as Secretary accused Putin of rigging his election. Putin predictably returned the favor, releasing emails showing the DNC doing just that for Hillary. Topped with a troll campaign because they could. Collusion was just a sideshow to deflect attention from all the mistakes. The only thing swaying voters was just how bad the candidates were. Didn't need Russian propaganda for that.
 
Seems to me that facebook itself is the one pushing propaganda here.

They donated millions to clinton. Are we supposed to sympathize with them that someone used their own platform for political gain...just as they did...because the candidate they backed wound up losing?

More than anything this is just a sad, pathetic push to try and further the trump-russia agenda, and to be frank it is so satisfying he won despite all the biased media and SJW BS getting puked onto the internet by self absorbed democrats living in an echo chamber working as "journalists"
 
How about something like ISIS propaganda or pretty much all forms of propaganda?
Also, Russia was always pro democrat before this election, why now? Was this the first election with Russian meddling?
 
Oh wait, the Guardian, never mind. :rolleyes: Notice they provide no link to their "tool" either.
 
Yukon Ranger said:
Seems to me that facebook itself is the one pushing propaganda here.

They donated millions to clinton. Are we supposed to sympathize with them that someone used their own platform for political gain...just as they did...because the candidate they backed wound up losing?

More than anything this is just a sad, pathetic push to try and further the trump-russia agenda, and to be frank it is so satisfying he won despite all the biased media and SJW BS getting puked onto the internet by self absorbed democrats living in an echo chamber working as "journalists"
Click to expand...

I wonder how much The Guardian donated? Serious question, since I have seen nothing related to investigative reporting on that sight, at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top