back to article Google: This may shock you, but we also banked thousands of dollars to run Russian propaganda

Joining Facebook and Twitter, Google has now been sucked into an investigation into how Russia influenced the US presidential elections last year. The search engine giant has informed US Congressfolk digging into the issue that Russian operatives spent tens of thousands of dollars across its products – from video site YouTube …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "a formal and strict policy of only accepting political ads from organizations within the country"

    Yeah, because it is so difficult to register a non-profit organization in any given country. Or set up an account that fakes an organization.

    Wow, what a barrier. Democracy is safe with that. Not.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "formal and strict policy of only accepting political ads from organizations within the country"

      ""If Vladimir Putin is using Facebook or Google or Twitter to, in effect, destroy our democracy, the American people should know about it," "

      But I thought the whole model of American "democracy" was based on he who spends the most money has the loudest voice?!

      Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone (who among other causes are well known for funding denial of global warming) spent $889 million on political causes from 2009–2016...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

        The Koch hysteria always confuses me a bit. If you don't like them or their agenda then that's perfectly fine, but they're really not that big a deal. Political spending in the US is pretty well tracked, and very searchable. From 1990-2016 they spent just under $41M, which puts them at #34 on the list of big-spending political entities (#1 is the SEIU at just under $280M). The data is all here; it's sliced, diced, and sorted any way you want it:

        https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

          "From 1990-2016 they spent just under $41M"

          No that's just their direct political contributions. As I said total spending by Koch associated organisations was closer to $900 billion. It might not have all been directly from their pocket - for instance from companies they control or associates - but it gives you an idea of the level of political spend just one party can control in the US!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

            So, the contributions by orgs "associated" with Koch Industries is about 22,000 times larger than that given directly? You sure you don't want to rethink that belief?

            Oh, I get it. You're counting every org in the country that isn't on the "progressive approved" list and carried out even one small transaction with K.I. over the last fifty years.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

            That should read 900 Million! Just Google it if in any doubt. Wikipedia has a good article on it including references.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

            Which is bullshit, absolutely. The $41M includes associate spending, you're just making it up and using questionable sources.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

              "The $41M includes associate spending, you're just making it up and using questionable sources."

              No the $41M is ONLY direct political contributions that they have to declare. Clearly it's not being made up because there are numerous pages and lots of documentation on the Internet that include checkable references. The Wikipedia page on the subject is a good start.

              And this $900M figure DOESNT include the ~ $900M that the Koch's political network (which includes circa 300 other donors) spent on the last election. See for instance https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html

              So the Kochs + friends ALONE spent in total $1.8 billion on Us political causes that we can trace in just the last few years....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

          The Kochs represent a handful of people. The SEIU is a union.

          Get it?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Allegedly Koch brothers related organisations alone..."

            Keep drinking the kool-aid. The SEIU represents its leaders and a few well connected democrat pollies. It extracts it's dues by a combination of graft and intimidation and spends to further the political ambitions of its small coterie of controllers.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "formal and strict policy of only accepting political ads from organizations within the country"

        Which is typical leftie bullshit. The amount that Soros spends on paying fake protestors to turn up and loot and cause damage far exceeds that.

        Hillary Clinton spent $550 Million + on advertising in the presidential election, and we're supposed to believe that a whole $100K was influential ??!!??! Clinton obviously used the wrong agencies for her campaign.

        I've said it before, the Russians (if they really were that interested) were primarily interested in undermining trust in the US election process. They only needed a little "seed capital" for this as partisan actors in the US itself have done most of their work for them. The whole "Russia hacked the elction" is a beat up of gargantuan scale based on nothing but a few tenuous threads, a lot of innuendo, and a wholesale commitment to that narrative by the Democrats to excuse their basic failings.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Democracy is safe with that. Not."

      I'll defer to Mr. H. L. Mencken on this subject:

      "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." - 1918

      "The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - 1920

      "What is any political campaign save a concerted effort to turn out a set of politicians who are admittedly bad and put in a set who are thought to be better. The former assumption, I believe is always sound; the latter is just as certainly false. For if experience teaches us anything at all it teaches us this: that a good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." - 1924

      And, most importantly:

      "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - 1916

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Democracy is safe with that. Not."

        This is the same H. L. Mencken who as a supreme court judge authorised the sterilisation and institutionalisation of millions of poor white folk, non-white folk and promoted eugenics? The one that would have comfortably fitted in with the National Socialist Party of the Wiemar Republic?

        Another quote from this esteemed gentleman "Three generations of idiots are enough" - despite no evidence of idiocy being submitted.

        I guess I should sit at his feet and be schooled in the respect of the people.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: "Democracy is safe with that. Not."

          "This is the same H. L. Mencken who as a supreme court judge authorised the sterilisation and institutionalisation of millions of poor white folk, non-white folk and promoted eugenics? The one that would have comfortably fitted in with the National Socialist Party of the Wiemar Republic?"
          Mencken was a journalist, not a supreme court judge. Here's an extended "quote" from "this esteemed gentleman" and very amusing, too as is most of Mencken's writing:

          A Constitution for the New Deal published in The American Mercury, June 1937.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Doublethink

    "Despite the apparent spending split for different political parties, left and right, Schiff is under no doubt that Russia was pro-Trump, however. "The themes are consistent across platforms: the desire to help Donald Trump, to hurt Hillary Clinton and the desire to set Americans against each other," he said."

    In other words, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

    BTW, the ad buy totals, if accurate, are about 1/10,000th the size of the spending by the two candidates for President.

    Is big influence!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How effective could these ads really be? I understand that there are human traits that are exploitable but this just feels a step too far.

    "If Vladimir Putin is using Facebook or Google or Twitter to, in effect, destroy our democracy, the American people should know about it,"

    How are you going to tell them? Hey sucker you got duped by an ad paid for by the Russians into voting for Trump. Sure, the Trump voting American public are going to love that one and not scream "fake news".

    Trump must be really enjoying this.

    What would be nice is the evidence behind these claims, who is the targeted audience, why were they targeted and what they were targeted with.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "How effective could these ads really be?"

      Trump won. So effective enough.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        On the assumption these ads won it for him.

        I'm sorry but I refuse to believe that there are enough stupid people to fall for some marketing scam on such a grand scale.

        Then I remember Facebook and Twitter..

        We're doomed I tells ya.

        1. ratfox
          Facepalm

          "Democracy in danger"

          The thing is, these amounts are a drop in the ocean compared to what Trump and Clinton paid in advertising. If I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton raised half a billion dollars, and she did not get elected.

          It would be a bit weird if 100k spent on Google ads were enough to upend the election, considering they represent 0.01% of the money involved. If Putin is that good at advertising, he should just become a marketing consultant, and he'd make enough money to save the whole Russian economy.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: "Democracy in danger"

            "If I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton raised half a billion dollars, and she did not get elected.

            It would be a bit weird if 100k spent on Google ads were enough to upend the election, considering they represent 0.01% of the money involved."

            Unless the Russians are really, really smart and the Merkins are as dumb as a bag full of rocks. Which seems to be what they are implying.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              > "Unless the Russians are really, really smart and the Merkins are as dumb as a bag full of rocks. Which seems to be what they are implying."

              No, these ultra-rich progs are flat out saying it. I suppose the thinking is that they are good leftists, and that means their opinions about stuff are always correct. Since the bulk of the country still isn't on board with them, even after witnessing the horror of Trump, and has gone so far as to vote for him in some numbers (enough for Trump to win anyway) , the average citizen must be very very stupid. QED.

              Once that's established, elevating the Russians generally to chess-playing Machiavellis all, is not terribly difficult. I mean, they DID swing the election, didn't they? AND they did it on a shoestring budget! Just how many superpowers does Putin have?

          2. Captain DaFt

            Re: "Democracy in danger"

            Hillary Clinton raised half a billion dollars, and she did not get elected.

            According to the New York Post, she spent $1.2 billion campaigning for President.

            Congrats Hill, you set a record!

            Trump's costs are harder to pin down since he mostly paid out of pocket, but the highest figure I saw was $480 million, less than any other candidate's spent since the seventies!

            It looks like all he really needed to win was not be Hillary, and keep feeding the Press's outrage.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Democracy in danger"

              Unfortunately you bought into Trump's bullshit that he self funded his campaign, he never uses his money when someone else's will do, he very quickly refunded himself from his campaign and then kept on spending, were you aware that he's currently paying his legal fees from his campaign funds rather than using his own money?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              and keep feeding the Press's outrage.

              I read:

              keep feeding the Press's Orange

            3. Richard Plinston

              Re: "Democracy in danger"

              > Trump's costs are harder to pin down since he mostly paid out of pocket

              That was the real 'fake news'. Trump _lent_ the campaign some millions and then recovered some of it as donations came in. He eventually forgave some of those loans, probably around 50million.

          3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: "Democracy in danger"

            You do not get it.

            Think of the Taleban leader, proudly spouting a huge ungainly beard leading his new bride for their first night and finding out that she is the village bicycle.

            Facebook, Google and for that matter the Internet itself have long been promoted (and actively used) to push "democracy" (actually the political powers USA finds more suitable) in Russia and other countries USA considers its enemies. The opposition there has been given resources, consulting and assistance so it can use them.

            Suddenly, what was supposed to be one of of our exclusive tools in promotion of havoc in other countries is being used to promote havoc in the West itself. Of course there will be a "Democracy in danger" moment. This was not supposed to happen.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @ratfox - "drop in the bucket" compared to campaign spending

            That's true, and will still be true even if these amounts are the tip of the iceberg a few tens of millions were spent by Russia. The thing is though, I think most of what Trump and especially Hillary spent was wasted, because most of it was on TV. I don't believe political ads on TV are all that effective anymore, because they are on so often many people just tune them out, but more importantly because they have rules about what you can say.

            Trump's campaign did more social media advertising, and I think that's more effective in today's world because your supporters can share it and it gets re-shared by other supporters and so forth. You could spend $10 on an ad and reach millions of people if it is a message a lot of people choose to share.

            Now a "hey Trump is great, he will create jobs blah blah blah" ad isn't going to get shared any more than a "vote for Hillary because she's not Trump" ad is, the official ads of campaigns are kind of boring because they have to live under certain restrictions, such as being somewhat tangentially related to the truth. Outsiders (whether supporters in the US, or those in Russia) don't have to live under such restrictions. Thus you see things that look like news articles that claim Hillary is dying and her campaign is desperate to keep the secret until after the election, or that she's involved in a child sex ring run out of a pizza parlor.

            Now I don't for a minute think that most people actually believed those things (well I did know a few otherwise intelligent people who bought the story about her secretly dying, but I think Fox News was actually trying to push that one or some variation of it) But those crazy stories are exactly the type of thing that get shared a lot. You could spend $10 running an ad carrying that story and hit millions of people because of how much it gets shared. That guarantees it does hit all the people dumb enough to believe them, and that's how you end up with an armed man terrorizing people in a pizza shop demanding to enter their nonexistent basement to rescue the nonexistent child sex slaves.

            1. TheVogon

              Re: @ratfox - "drop in the bucket" compared to campaign spending

              More evidence of other spending is emerging:

              http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/dont-shoot-us-russia-pokemon-go/index.html

  4. Sir Runcible Spoon
    Facepalm

    More bullshit

    A few hundred thousand dollars to buy an election you say? If that is the case then there are going to be a lot of party donors who would like to know where their money *really* went.

    In other news, a squirrel got involved in a fight between two packs of dogs. Its antics made them go (for the) nuts.

    Still haven't seen any real evidence of just how these adverts were supposed to influence voters either.

    1. ecarlseen

      Re: More bullshit

      Seriously. If this fart-in-a-thunderstorm level of spending moved the election at all in any measurable way whatsoever, then I desperately need the contact info for that ad agency.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: More bullshit

      "A few hundred thousand dollars to buy an election you say?"

      But that's just what we know about so far. I would expect it to be the tip of the iceberg...

      1. Chris Miller

        Re: More bullshit

        Hillary's campaign alone spent $1.4 billion (Trump a bit less than a billion). Even if these numbers for an alleged Russian spend are real, and represent only 1% of the true amount ... that's still just a rounding error.

        In 2004, the Guardian urged its readers to write to constituents in marginal Ohio, in an effort to swing the presidential election against Bush. I don't recall any howls that the evil Brits were trying to steal that campaign. And it worked so well, too.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: More bullshit

          "Hillary's campaign alone spent $1.4 billion (Trump a bit less than a billion). Even if these numbers for an alleged Russian spend are real, and represent only 1% of the true amount ... that's still just a rounding error."
          So... the less you spend, the more effective you are. If the Hildebeast had spent the same amount as the Russkies, she'd have shit it in!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Go

            Re: More bullshit

            The actual percentage figure is closer to 0.001% (!).

            Do you realize what this means? It means I can go out right now, whip out a single centavo, plunk it down on a personal ad for the back of a doghouse in Pomona, and very soon I will be Evil Overlord of the WORLD!!

        2. TheVogon

          Re: More bullshit

          "Even if these numbers for an alleged Russian spend are real, and represent only 1% of the true amount ... that's still just a rounding error."

          But when you consider that the Russians can post any old lie without caring, and then have a large army of paid political bloggers than can leverage posts and adverts as true - a few million of spend likely has a far larger influence that you might think....And that's just the things they have done that we know about!

          Baring in mind how close the election was, I think that the Russians might well have done enough to make a difference.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Coffee/keyboard

    Microsoft said it was looking at whether its Bing search engine had also been used to push divisive stories.

    Haha did they?

    Er, sorry Microsoft - you weren't even asked!

    (and the few that use bing are trump supporters, anyway)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Those 12 votes are what could have swung it.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        "Those 12 votes are what could have swung it."
        And they'd have elected Tweedle Dumb instead of Tweedle Dumber! Or should that be the other way around?

        Vive la différence...

  6. Palpy

    Hmmm....

    ...Well, how much would it take to tilt an election that was so close that the winning candidate lost the popular vote?

    One of the major problems in American politics right now is a widening gap between left and right. Pew Research study, for instance. This hamstrings cooperation and conciliation. It encourages loose-cannon, hyper-partisan candidates like Roy Moore in Alabama.

    What would be the effect of pushing hot-button fake news to inflame and polarize public opinion even further, I wonder?

    Vlad thanks everyone who minimizes his efforts, I'm sure. He is not looking for American adulation, just American disintegration.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm....

      Dude, do you ever read those Pew articles? I found another of their "Partisanship" articles published Oct 5, which states:

      " Over the past few years, some of the biggest changes in opinions among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have been on race and the role of government. There has been far less change in the views of Republicans and Republican leaners. As a result, the public’s views as a whole have moved in a more liberal direction. "

      So we see the Left doing most of the moving. Becoming more radical. Particularly over the role of government. Yet you attempt to blame Roy Moore and Conservatism for "hamstringing" cooperation and conciliation when it's your side that's changed the most.

      You could point out some other issue that has seen movement from conservatives, but the real battle going on right now is for power and power alone.

      Hey, here's a good line of defense for you here (if I may be so bold). Claim that the Left, up until now, was actually metaphorically "wrapped in the chains of the Right." And now you're free! Too bad it isn't translating into electoral success for ya, but the Left has always preferred more 'dramatic' ways to achieve power anyway. ;-/

      1. Palpy

        Re: Dude...

        BJ, my point was not kicking the right, though your point is always kicking the left. On your part, it's typical "I'm a proud part of the problem, not the solution" thinking.

        The real point is, political partisanship in the US has crippled good governance. Damn near crippled ANY governance, let alone careful and wise governance. And Russian use of the internet to promote divisive disinformation in the US increases the anger, distrust, and hatred on all sides of political and cultural divides. It makes things worse.

        Putin's trolls and fake-news factories are tasked with throwing gas on the fires of anger and distrust among Americans. How much it affects a house already burning I don't know, but it adds to the destruction. And it behooves us in the West -- politically right, left, center, up, down, or striped -- to bloody well pay attention.

  7. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    And of course

    ..there's no evidence whatsoever that other government agencies, including the US, haven't been doing similar all over the world for years.

    1. Palpy

      Re: And of course --

      -- the US has been doing it for decades, actually. Not so much internet, that's new, but interfering in the internal affairs of Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Congo, etc.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: And of course --

        "interfering in the internal affairs of Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Congo, etc."
        Don't forget British Commonwealth countries like Grenada and Australia!

      2. FozzyBear
        Pirate

        Re: And of course --

        Or Obama attempting to influence Israel's elections. He wasn't exactly covert about that either.

        The real question is why such a shit storm in a tea cup over this? Is the American political system showing just how hypocritical it is. Entirely possible. Covering something else or just trying to divert attention from the real issues plaguing the country and world.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon
          Mushroom

          Re: And of course --

          I also seem to recall Obama trying to interfere with our Brexit vote.

    2. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: And of course

      "..there's no evidence whatsoever that other government agencies, including the US, haven't been doing similar all over the world for years."
      Growing up in UKLand in the 1960s I recall Voice of America on shortwave radio. The purpose IIRC was to destabilise government in the USSR.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Joe Kennedy

    must have spend much more to by his son the presidency.

    I am sure that what grates the DNC most about this is that they spent at least 1000 times as much to buy the presidency, and failed. That is the problem with democracy - the voters can't be trusted.

  9. HurdImpropriety

    Laugh at the "oh Russia ads broke the US elections"

    Yeah ok... this "admittance" by Google and earlier Facebook that "oh we are so sorry we took all this money for ads from Russia because they totally made Trump win the election. The fact that Hillary and Bill are criminals and Hillary is a screaming socialist that would have moved the southern border up to Kansas.... STOP IT ALREADY

    Hillary lost due to 12 to 20 Trillion climb in National Debt under Obama giveaways and handouts. Free iPhones.... multi-generational welfare... 20 million new illegals under social security welfare healthcare and it wont cost taxpayers a penny lie.... please STOP IT STOP IT trying to blame Russia....

    1. Hollerithevo

      Re: Laugh at the "oh Russia ads broke the US elections"

      Bless your heart. You have no idea what a socialist is.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Coin

    The Orange Press

    or

    Grand Orange Press

  11. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    So what?

    The US Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decided a few years ago that there should be no restrictions on who can run political adverts and how much they spend on them. The cynic might interpret this as suggesting elections be won by the highest bidder. But any student of American political history is likely to note that "it's always been thus".

    Given the money being poured into politics by lobbies, special interests and cranks, any outrage over money being spent doing the same by foreign governments is disingenuous at the very least. The real outrage is to call this democracy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      I wholeheartedly (if that's proper English) agree.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      You are no doubt referring to the "Citizens United" case, which after all was a case where Hillary Clinton tried to prevent a group from screening a film about her illegal exploitation of her official position on the grounds that it was "political advertizing" that companies were not allowed to indulge in.

      The SC held that groups of citizens including non-profit and companies had that right - to indulge in political speech. Citizens United basically determined that it didn't matter how they were organized, people had a right to free speech. Clinton (and the democrats) have always hated that because they really hate people being able to tell the truth about them.

  12. codejunky Silver badge

    Erm

    "If Vladimir Putin is using Facebook or Google or Twitter to, in effect, destroy our democracy, the American people should know about it,"

    However the success of Trump and the failure of the Democrats was pretty easily picked apart-

    Republicans have a 'clown car' of runners (choice), democrats had Hillary and some others (no choice).

    Republicans openly fight for the support of the people, Sanders openly fights for the support of the people while the democrats plug Hillary.

    Trump wins the republican race and makes enemies of R and D, Sanders is actually noticeable and taking support from the democratic candidate. How dare he! Ignorance of anyone but Hillary isnt working, Sanders pipe down and know your place!

    Trump runs for the republicans barely with their support, Hillary is the democrat candidate and Sanders is quashed.

    Now reading that very condensed election run is it the Russians trying to destroy democracy? Or is it the Democrats dictating the result then crying when people have other opinions? Hillary might have been chosen in a fair democrat race but instead the democrats dictated her as their candidate and call foul when their candidate didnt win.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Erm

      There are a lot of reasons Trump won and Hillary lost. The democrats tried to push her, Trump being a loudmouth and saying crazy things kept him in the news constantly, Hillary's campaign consisting of pretty much "vote for me because I'm not Trump" vs. Trump making promises like jobs and a wall, the list goes on. Just because Russian was trying to interfere and help Trump doesn't mean that pushed him over the edge, but it certainly didn't hurt.

      The important thing to remember is that Russia was not so much pro-Trump as anti-Hillary, based on past experience with her. Maybe Putin had reasons to be positive about Trump, I guess Mueller's investigation will find out if so but that's really not important in the long run. What matters is that this was just a temporary condition for this election, Russia's main aim isn't to get one person or another elected but to create divisions. They want the left and right to be fighting everywhere, they want to see splits like Brexit and Catalonia. Putin knows Russia can't compete with a united and peaceful west, but if it is divided and fighting then he still has influence.

      Given how much division Trump is creating getting the presidency involved in the NFL's kneeling and other unimportant stuff, Trump in office certainly helps Putin's goal of a bigger political divide in the US. However, he may have bit off more than he can chew if Trump gets full batshit and attacks North Korea. That conflict would be too uncomfortably close to Russia for Putin's liking.

    2. strum

      Re: Erm

      Hillary made the mistake of running for political office, with political policies and political expertise on offer - while Trump ran for reality TV host, with no policies - just slogans, no expertise - just attitude.

      Of course, Trump lost the popular vote - but sneaked the College. That's the fault of a dumb constitution.

      But Putin did interfere - not because he loved Trump so much, but because he feared a competent Hillary and wanted to muddy US waters, as much as possible. So he did, because, after all, it was so cheap.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Erm

        @ strum

        "Hillary made the mistake of running for political office, with political policies and political expertise on offer - while Trump ran for reality TV host, with no policies - just slogans, no expertise - just attitude."

        That again points to the problem. The democrats had one of those too in Bernie. But the republicans let people choose their representative while the democrats dictated their representative even though people didnt support her nor her policies. I doubt the pittance coughed up by the Russians did much. Especially with the onslaught of bad press Trump got (some justified, some that would make snowflakes cry and melt).

        When it comes to democracy the republicans did it and the democrats didnt. Hopefully they will learn from this experience but so far they just seem to be making poor excuses as to why Hillary lost instead of why the democrats didnt win.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Erm

        I see a basic flaw in your comment, the ""fear a competent Hillary" - strawman because no such thing actually exists or ever existed. Unless you consider being the most successful "pay to play" operator allowed to get away with it a sign of competence...

  13. Palpy

    RE: "What matters is that this was just a temporary condition for this election..."

    No, it's not temporary. It continues. For instance, most news outlets in the US have reported that Russian trolls have been actively stoking the partisan "outrage" over the NFL "take-a-knee" protests.

    Also, it's not just the USA. During the French election, Russia targeted Macron's personal life. "The spying campaign included Russian agents posing as friends of friends of Macron associates [on Facebook] and trying to glean personal information from them, according to the U.S. congressman and two others briefed on the matter."

    I think the Russians have stolen quite a march on the West in the use of social networks for political disinformation, propaganda, and societal disruption. That's the problem.

    Yes, the West has interfered in many other countries. But that's not the point. The West uses tanks, and so do the Russians. But the West does not welcome Russian tanks into our countries. And of course we work on ways to defeat their weapons.

    I don't much care whether the Russian efforts actually tilted the US election enough to get Trump into office. Political dysfunction and decades of shit-headed, destructive partisan politics were enough to do the job.

    In my opinion, it's much more important for the US and the West to recognize the way the internet and social networks are being weaponized by the Russians' use of fake accounts, trolls, and propaganda-amplification techniques. Again, in an analogy, it's as if Russian tanks are more effective than ours, and they have developed stealth technology so that they can attack us on our home turf -- and we just now noticed it.

    Again IMHO, the West is more vulnerable than Russia (or China) to these techniques: we have a tradition of free expression, open elections, and vigorous political scrimmage, while Russia controls political expression and elections are mostly a sham. So Russia can use the internet to disrupt the politics of the West more effectively than the West can disrupt the politics of Russia.

    Why would the West not be concerned about what the Russians are doing? Why would we not take it seriously, and try to find ways to expose and denature the trolls, disinformation, and propaganda amplification?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't see the problem. What's wrong with Russians pumping vast sums of money into the US economy? It isn't like either major party candidate was going to trim back any of the various wars we're currently in or slow the spending of human capital in the quest to make the world safe for democracy through the use of explosives and high velocity projectiles.

    1. TheVogon

      "It isn't like either major party candidate was going to trim back any of the various wars we're currently in or slow the spending of human capital in the quest to make the world safe for democracy through the use of explosives and high velocity projectiles."

      Possibly, but only one of them is certifiably sane.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like