Facebook to Turn Over Russian-Linked Ads to Congress
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The big fish (which should have been included in the article) was the intense internet campaign made during the 2013 Ukraine crisis. Preceding the crisis, the Snowden revelations produced an immediate, immense distrust in our government and institutions, giving way to a wide window of exploitation. There are heaps of ostensive evidence of how the Russian regime took advantage of these events on multiple fronts: bolstering fringe groups in the EU, hijacking public conversations online, intimidating and harassing opposition voices (which I've experienced), and adding pressure to national dialogue through injection of Whataboutism and disingenuous innuendo.
The response from various online communities during this period has been nothing short of courageous. I've personally witnessed a multitude of diligent detection and pushback across the political and intellectual spectrum during the crisis, not only due to organic voices, but also a strong intelligence apparatus that helps to detect, analyze, and disrupt these attacks. These pieces continually avoid citing sources outside of the political spectrum that helps to make clear sense of the issue. I acknowledge that certain forces of good do not want to be in the spotlight, however as time goes on this looks like a missed opportunity to make a bold statement against not only this behavior, but also all malignant and criminal behavior that takes place online.
The confidence lost in our institutions is owed to nothing more than the political climate itself. We chase the ghosts of "collusion" and "influence" and other ambiguous terms. The time for scrutiny and hot takes are over, we should be well underway into a severe, resolute response. Instead we are packed into a clown car, driving around in circles. God help us.
Frankly, given the revealed political preferences of FB executives, I'm pretty skeptical of any fruit from this tree.
/full disclosure: I voted for Johnson.
Why the double standard?
(Given the levels of ad targeting possible, this also is a possible argument against domestic targeted election ads)
But otherwise, there is a double standard. However, your Obama anecdote doesn't demonstrate the double standard at all. Obama was being totally transparent in his support of a candidate in a foreign election. There was no attempt to disguise his intent to influence the election. It was a straightforward endorsement.
A better example of the double standard would be ignoring the US-backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran, the best known of the many instances of the US covertly influencing the political process in other countries.
That a country that the US has been a traditional adversary of tried to influence US affairs isn't really that surprising. That the attempt has been brushed off or even welcomed in some sections of US society is perhaps the novel part.
Every politician whether they were tech literate or not got on Facebook and Twitter after Obama won. Facebook has enabled the propping up of unqualified to govern but qualified to be "like"d candidates all around the world.
They have done serious damage to society in the last 10 years and we are just getting started as people realize the damage.
Barack Obama had been in electoral politics, as first a state and then US senator, for just over a decade before being elected President, and had been widely hailed as an up and coming star in the party and likely future Presidential candidate after his national convention speech when running for the US Senate.
He was not at all an “overnight political success”.
> considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle.
Sure, by that standard anyone who succeeds does so meteorically, since only a handful do per generation, while many spend whole careers in politics. But that just means the standard is nonsense.