General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFacebook sent its employees to Donald Trumps campaign office to help with online marketing
Facebook is finally admitting that it allowed fake Russian accounts to run paid political ads during the election (link). Although Facebook says its now cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the revelation is bringing new attention to the relationship between Facebook Incorporated and the Donald Trump campaign. That relationship involved Facebook sending its employees to help out at the Trump campaign office in charge of digital marketing. The source of this information: one of Trumps own people.
In an online BBC video, Theresa Hong, the Donald Trump campaigns Digital Content Director, has made a number of startling confessions that she seems to think were bragging points. Shes revealed that Cambridge Analytica, the company suspected of having used voter data stolen by the Russian government to plot its online marketing strategy on Trumps behalf, ran its operations out of the same offices where the Trump campaign itself was plotting its paid Facebook ad strategy. But the truly shocking revelation is who else she admits was in the building, which Trumps people called Project Alamo.
The BBC interviewer asks Hong, What were Facebook and Google and YouTube people actually doing here? Why were they here? She responds by saying They were helping us, you know. They were basically our hands-on partners as far as being able to utilize the platform as effectively as possible. Shen then bragged When youre pumping in millions and millions of dollars to these social platforms, youre going to get white glove treatment. So they would send people, you know, representatives to the Project Alamo to ensure that all our needs were being met.
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/facebook-employees-trump-office/4784/
global1
(25,270 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,020 posts)The numbers keep changing.
How much was Russia's (illegal) contribution to the Trump campaign?
tanyev
(42,610 posts)And did they report it as such?
George II
(67,782 posts)hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)So, will FB lose any revenue as a result of this treachery? I have never had a FB, Youtube or Twitter account.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)regulated as a utility.
Ligyron
(7,639 posts)Or, like they don't anymore?
and the phone company
We The People do hold a cudgel or two.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Of course, this is the rarely factual Palmer Report.
Anyone paying that kind of money for advertising gets in house TECH SUPPORT.
Also, fun fact, HRC received the majority of donations from facebook employees and executives.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)hwmnbn
(4,279 posts)Then the one critical difference between the two campaigns is Russian involvement.
Btw, I googled and couldn't find any article confirming in house tech support for Clinton campaign. It would seem likely and obvious but I couldn't find it. May I ask for your source on this? Thanks.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Because it's common fucking sense. If this were a thing, don't you think Hillary and/or prominent Dems would be screaming it from the rooftops?
They're not, because it's not a scandal.
The real scandal is Russian influence on our election. Not the infrastructure they used.
hwmnbn
(4,279 posts)So that means you can't or won't provide confirmation for your assertion. Noted.
What infrastructure did the Russians use to influence our election? What does your common fucking sense tell you?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, email, various targeted ads from other advertisers, Google, Yahoo, and other search engines via SEO, tons of blogs and fake news websites. And there were even russian trolls/bots here on DU.
Not to mention hacking of various state election boards and databases.
But it's all facebook's fault.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/russian-political-ad-buys-raise-questions-facebook-transparency
hwmnbn
(4,279 posts)but they may have been witting or unwitting accomplices to this "influence." That's a point of inquiry the special Counsel is pursuing. Thus far Facebook has not been completely cooperative. They're a private company so we're in tricky legal waters here. I'll await developments.
I absolutely agree with TPM's article that this influence was multi-faceted. The question is was it coordinated? Seems like it was. So the main issue is who coordinated? I suspect Russia did most of the grunt work, but someone helped them to focus and maximize the effect.
And that SOMEONE must be held accountable for this straight up treason.
You may have seen this but if you didn't...
Link to tweet
I've not seen or heard any similar information about the Clinton campaign, that's why I asked for your source.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's not damning like you think it is.
And of course you won't hear about it. It's NOT newsworthy.
"Company Provides Paid Service To Political Candidates, Details at 11".
ANYONE spending millions on facebook marketing WILL get hands on attention from facebook staff. If Clinton marketed on facebook (which she did), then she had the SAME services that OrangeDick McFuckface did. It's not illegal, nefarious, or even notable.
The only reason you know about Trump having said service was this interview that keeps being posted ad naseum by people who don't understand how the internet works.
Ridiculous.
hwmnbn
(4,279 posts)you do hear about THIS Drumpf/Russia/Facebook strategy. That seemed newsworthy enough for the BBC. I take it you have different journalistic standards.
And you know this by your common fucking sense again? Would you publish that statement in your newspaper, blog, letter to the editor, or even a comment thread on an internet forum without citing external sourcing?
(1) I'm impressed by your certainty about what and how I know things.
(2) Credibility of the clip is not dependent on number of views or posts. Do you have any evidence that counters the substance of the BBC report? If so, why not e-mail and enlighten them on their errors. They'd be grateful.
Well you got me there, I'll defer to your superior intellect and confess I'm not very bright. But that's precisely why I require independent verification. I have to work double hard to screen out eloquent bullshit. It's a curse!
I agree. So Dr Hobbitstein, unless you have more to add, I'll just say Peace...Out.
Response to hwmnbn (Reply #12)
Dr Hobbitstein This message was self-deleted by its author.
c-rational
(2,595 posts)scheming and strategizing, and unfortunately with our corporate MSM they would be put forth as equivanent.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)This is not something nefarious.
nycbos
(6,038 posts)... I am highly skeptical.
AllyCat
(16,222 posts)this is the Palmer Report. Additionally, did others running for office run ads on FB? Wouldn't any major outlet seek business from a national or local campaign with money to spend?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Those are the logical questions to ask when posited with sensationalist/yellow journalism.
hwmnbn
(4,279 posts)When and where. Seems like that's get-able information in this digital world.
Analysis might shed some light as to how this "interference" actually took place.
PatrickforO
(14,587 posts)One step closer to bringing the traitors to justice.
Baitball Blogger
(46,757 posts)brainwashed that they're still posting nuttery today? Facebook: A self-propelling nut factory. It finds the gene of prejudice and feeds it until it grows inside the brain.
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)take them to lunch
buy em a beer or three
give em a bunch of company pens
tech support you damn well better believe it
in most places you buy something tech you get tech support....
would you buy an i phone that had not tech support? of coarse not
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)That's never happened before, has it.....
When you spend a bunch of money with a company like Facebook, they send people to work with you and keep you happy. Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Hillary, Stein, or anyone else. If Vermin Supreme set up a multi-million dollar advertising account he would get the same treatment too.
Typical Palmer nonsense. Take something like this and then spin it to be a huge controversy when it's really nothing. Nothing but click bait garbage so he gets paid because the traffic pushes ad views.
I can't believe people still find his garbage credible.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Standard procedure for big add buys.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Russia had small, seemingly unrelated, adbuys that totaled $100k.
Russia's FUNDING may have all come from one place, but the adbuys were setup small and discretely.
Big difference between one person dropping $100k and many different people dropping a combined total of $100k.
FreeState
(10,580 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)They exist to make their shareholder's money and they deal in personal information and human information. They sell off information about users and sell ad space to the highest bidders and, as far as I'm aware, nothing regulating their stances in partisan politics. I don't expect corporations to necessarily be upstanding or have a conscience. They exist to make money. Trump paid them money... they delivered. If any rules were broken, I'm sure it's in the Trump camp.
Perhaps laws need written to limit the influence social media has on elections and election contributions.
But as of right now, I don't think Facebook was in the wrong whatsoever and don't have shit to answer for.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)or didn't support him. It's all about the money.