Facebook exposed 126 million to pro-Trump Russian propaganda from servers inside Russia

a few are included in this article:


it is. partially.

tv, radio, and print ads all have regulations about this kind of advertising. the internet does not.

that’s why fb, google, and twitter are scrambling to address this ( in the smallest ways possible. ) they want to avoid the regulations that other businesses have to deal with.

that’s the first time ive heard that specific of a number. where does it come from?


This deserves to be repeated: What difference does it make that the pro-trump propaganda BS came from Russia. If the same BS came from the USA, how would that be any better???


Any propaganda sucks and should be avoided if possible.

I think it mostly matters that it came from Russia because it is just one of many multiple ways Russia specifically interfered in the election and influenced the vote. A foreign government actively interfered with our government to weaken our country, that is quite different from two internal parties struggling for power.

Also it is important that it is Russia in light of the multiple ways the right colluded with this foreign super power to undermine the US electoral system. One of our parties committed multiple illegal acts in colluding with them, making it specifically relevant.

Also it is important it is Russia because they are one of the world super powers that has a long standing history of anti-americanism. This can be viewed as a type of attack on our system and way of life.

Take your pick i guess… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Well put!

1 Like

If you figure it out, please tell the rest of us.

Y’all get that the USA has been doing this to every country it can reach (including supposed allies) for seventy years?


Then those other countries can have their own indictments and trials.


That’d depend on what you mean by “propaganda”.

In my lexicon, it just means “any communication aimed at influencing political opinion”. Propaganda is not intrinsically dishonest or malicious.

Every political ad is propaganda. Most political journalism is propaganda.


Unfortunately all too true… :disappointed:

In my lexicon, honest factual information is just called information and logical arguments are called points, neither is considered propaganda.

Propaganda, as I’m familiar with the term, is not either of those, it is using dishonesty, emotions, FUD, imagery, etc. to influence an opinion outside the bounds of a reasoned logical argument.


…which, if aimed at the real culprits, will shortly be followed by a visit from the 101st Airborne.

1 Like

People have this idea that propaganda is bad. It isn’t; it’s neutral. Propaganda means nothing more than the use of communication to achieve political goals. It’s no more innately unethical than rhetoric.

It’s a tool. The ethics all depend upon how and why you use it.

The fact that propaganda has a bad reputation is itself the result of propaganda. Folks have been told that the culture and society that they grew up in is natural and normal, and that all other views are an attempt at propagandistic subversion.

But most of them don’t realise that they’ve been swimming in propaganda for their whole lives. Everyone does.


We’re (the USA, of which I am a citizen, by hook or by crook) going to invade Europe? I doubt that.

REALLY worth watching, for those who haven’t. Breaks down exactly how it came to be, post-WWII.


I’m going to keep saying it over and over. The democratic leadership screwed everyone when it decided to be hell bent on Hillary being prez. I’m not going to get into whether or not she was qualified, whether or not “BENGHAZI!!!” or any of the other supposed scandals had even a hint of truth, or really anything at all about whether or not she could have been a good prez. Why? Because she’s been the bogeyman in conservative circles for decades, with considerable spill over into other political leanings. So much so that people actually believed something so patently ridiculous as “pizzagate”. I’ve never seen someone so demonized for so long. She was really one of the single worst choices for president, not because of any actual scandalous facts, or any lack of qualifications, but because you might as well have been offering up Satan himself as your candidate in the minds of much of the American population.

It really was a choice between a showboating reality show fake asswipe who was willing to verbalize middle america’s deepest fears and prejudices while giving lip play to their god and “values”, and someone who, for decades, had been presented as the face of true evil.

Not saying it was at all justified etc…, but imagine now if democratic party leadership had truly been impartial…


Making online campaign ads subject to the same laws as print and media is a start. Right now we have NO IDEA what ads were run because of how hyperspecific the audience was. Opponents have no idea what’s being said, how to respond, and so on. It’s a giant black box. If all advertising needs to be reported during an election it’s a little better. But not much.

The bigger problem is that the lines between ad and journalism are so mushy you can’t tease them apart. Is an ad for an article written by campaign shills covered? When people share an article on their own, who is liable?

That may be its root, but looking it up in a bunch of online dictionaries, I’m hard pressed to find one that doesn’t include the words “dishonesty” “biased” “misleading” “manipulative” etc. So I think your academic understanding of the word being neutral doesn’t match its most common uses and definitions today, hence the reason everyone else having a slightly different idea about the nature of its meaning? That’d be my guess.

In the US we don’t call factual debate and points propaganda, we reserve the use of that term for dishonest manipulative political spin. That was how i was using it.

Manipulation is indeed a tool used on people for the consolidation of power, and i feel it is bad when used on people, even if for “good” purposes. I’d argue that it is never neutral due to the nature of coercion and manipulation. My dislike of propaganda is that it is intended to manipulate an emotional outcome, usually negative, for the purpose of gaining power over others. I prefer factual reasoned arguments where the points are discussed on their own merit without coloring them.

If you choose to use a different word to describe what i’m describing, lets not get hung up on semantics, rather substitute in whatever word you feel has the meaning i’m intending. The word isn’t important, the point is. Also if you have a better word I can use, please share and i’ll consider it. I appreciate expanding my ability to articulate ideas effectively…i still have a long way to go!


You may borrow my dictionary when he finishes with it.

Then we hunt Moose and Squirrel, no?


But not me!

Who said anything about Europe?