That was quick.
Less than a week after Facebook agreed to turn over to Congressional investigators copies of the 3,000-odd political advertisements that the company said it had inadvertently sold to a Russia-linked group intent on meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the contents of the ads have – unsurprisingly – leaked, just as we had expected them to.No smoking gun.
Zero Hedge
Leaked Descriptions Of Infamous "Russia Ads" Derail Collusion Narrative "They Showed Support For Clinton"
Tyler Durden
AdAge
The 2016 election outcome was unpredictable not only because of Donald Trump's presidential victory, but in terms where the money went. According to a new report from media tracker Borrell Associates, the final tally of political campaign ad spending in the 2016 election cycle came in lower than anticipated -- at $9.8 billion. And, while broadcast TV retained its dominance, the mass media mainstay of political advertising took a big blow from more targetable and data-driven ad options such as cable TV and digital.The premise that $100,000 to $150,000 spent on FaceBook ads exerted much of an influence at all on the presidential election is simply absurd, let alone a dominant influence. This is not reaching for straws. It is jumping the shark.
AdAge
Kate Kaye
Censorship in the works.
Another paradox of liberalism.
Fortune
How Facebook, Google Handle Political Ads Will Inevitably Change, Marketers Say
Reuters
Censorship in the works.
Fortune
How Facebook, Google Handle Political Ads Will Inevitably Change, Marketers Say
Reuters
Corporate media will ignore / downplay / spin this to suit the propaganda agenda. The ZH piece shows this already happening. Any form of dissent is impossible unless it can be used to support the official narrative.
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteThese people are the same as you always saying "we have to get the money out of politics "
You can't say, "we have to get the money out of politics " and "these people are wrong to be concerned about Russia influence " at the same time...
It's hypocritical....
Either influence/munnie is bad or it is not bad....
Imo you're not being logically consistent....
"US corporate interest in US politics bad!" then "Russia state interest in US politics good!"
ReplyDeleteNot making too much sense here....
"Large deficit is savings which is a leakage which is bad!" then "deficit is too small need a large deficit which is good!"
ReplyDeleteNot making too much sense here either....
"Single payer is inflationary!" then "single payer is deflationary!"
ReplyDeleteEtc....
I have seen a lot of allegations of "Russian influence" and zero evidence.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile 9.8 billion US was spent on ads in the 2017 general at the national, state and local levels. How much of that was small contributions?
"Large deficit is savings which is a leakage which is bad!" then "deficit is too small need a large deficit which is good!"
ReplyDeleteNot making too much sense here either..
Confusing stock and flow. It's the flow that is stimulative, on one hand, and secondly, the amount of public debt in the stock of savings reflects saving desire satisfied sustainably.
The two complement each other in the MMT analysis.
They have RT, Sputnik, the blogs, bots, etc.... now there are Facebook ads... etc...
ReplyDeleteThese left people who also don't like "Citizens United" don't like this Russian activity either....
They are equating these types of activities by the different institutions... and want them made illegal...
It's at least conceptually equivalent.... I can see where they are coming from.....
(I don't have a problem with Citizens United and I don't have a problem with RT, Sputnik either...)
"Censorship in the works."
ReplyDeleteAn alternative verdict in the Citizens United case would be censorship too....
So we can't just advocate for censorship of the views that are in conflict with our own personal biases....
Censorship is censorship....
Sputnik and RT are news organizations like Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were around long, long before Sputnik and RT became an issue.
ReplyDeleteCitizens United is about corporation being persons and money being free speech.
These are totally different issues. Comparing them is a category error.
Matt, sometimes your arguments amuse the shit out of me. Tom's right (in my view) about the Sputnik and RT vs Citizens United difference. But nevertheless, watching you snake your views has its value.
ReplyDeleteSo you guys are saying the RT and Sputnik people work for free?
ReplyDeleteThey get paid like everyone else...
You have two institutions seeking influence, 1 US corporations and 2 the Russian government....
Both institutions use munnie to pay people to produce persuasion product for use in the various media channels
I don't see a problem with this activity as voters still get to decide ....
The anti Russia Dems don't want either institution to be able to politically advocate for their interests.... it's a logically consistent position..
ReplyDeleteThey are both loonie lefty positions... just substitute "corporations!" for "Russia!" and its the same thing...
ReplyDeleteMatt, got any B science fiction movies to support your position?
ReplyDeleteMMT'er Marshal Auerback has a show on RT. So MMT is a Russian plant?
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's why Bernie can't get it???
ReplyDeleteNoah here are 6:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cracked.com/article_20407_6-movie-good-guys-you-didnt-notice-were-total-hypocrites.html
Here Bernie is aware of the Russia "interference"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails-russian-hackers-kremlin-democratic-639292%3famp=1
Bernie probably cannot be seen to associate with the MMT people ... too Russia friendly...
ReplyDeleteSo you guys are saying the RT and Sputnik people work for free? WHO is saying that? I'm going back to bed.
ReplyDelete